|
On November 15 2012 03:59 mcc wrote:
Nazism is (no matter which flavor) evil either as ideology or as practical implementation. Or do you think that wars, racism or genocide are not evil ? Non-evil people seeing nazism for what it really is means that they will never want to embrace it. Thus if education presents nazism as it truly is convincingly enough it will prevent people from embracing it. And that is success.
Subjective much. One can't define what's truly evil because that's purely based on one's own perception.
|
On November 15 2012 04:50 sephiria wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 04:37 mcc wrote:On November 15 2012 04:06 Aterons_toss wrote:On November 15 2012 03:59 mcc wrote:On November 15 2012 03:39 Aterons_toss wrote:
Against this background, it seems unthinkable that anyone could embrace Nazi ideals, because it's virtually impossible to grow up in Germany and not have a rather thorough understanding of them.
This is exactly the problem, if an education makes it impossible for someone to embrace fascist-like ideals than it means that education is obviously based. Nazism was bad much like communism was bad. But extreme right/extreme left ideal in general are not bad, quite the opposite, if you read any humanist philosophy you will see that similar systems were proposed and they could have even in recent days worked quite well "theoretically". The Nazi in 20 century Germany were not evil incarnate as a "philosophy", indeed they were not worse than current American and European governs protecting the church and it's rights even tho the church is openly sexists and some of them ( most ) heavily racist as well. Nazi didn't want all the Jews, blacks, Chinese... etc dead, only some extremist got that far ( and it was due to monetary reasons mostly ), they did believe race inequality and had a right extreme doctrine which is obviously going to be far less than a success when applied in a real situation. If you teach this at school instead " EVERYTHING NAZI IS EVIL INCARNATE" than you are likely to only have a very small majority of people believe nazi was " the right thing " and that silent minority will never be able to grow much like extremist of any kind haven't been able to grow in current 1st world countries. But if you portray it as the pure evil than it will get people to question the information they are given and actually say "maybe they are the bad guys and trying to make the Nazi look bad". Twisting the truth and hammering on an issue such as Nazi only to make sure it never comes back is really silly in this day and age. Not that there are any chances it would in Germany at any rate, but you would likely see less of this if they had not done that. Or maybe if education makes it impossible for someone to embrace nazism it succeeded spectacularly. Because that is the goal of education, to form people so they are able to function in society. Nazism is (no matter which flavor) evil either as ideology or as practical implementation. Or do you think that wars, racism or genocide are not evil ? Non-evil people seeing nazism for what it really is means that they will never want to embrace it. Thus if education presents nazism as it truly is convincingly enough it will prevent people from embracing it. And that is success. What you are saying is basically the same as someone saying that if education makes it impossible for someone to embrace that 1+1=3, then it is biased. Which I hope you can clearly see as nonsense. Well your are from a country that has much stronger connections to Germany in general from what i know and you likely know more about their education system than me since i was drawing conclusion based on a few posts. If the education system isn't bias to the issue than it's likely that this will never become a problem in Germany... nor would it if it was and to be honest discussing this is kind pointless since, as was pointed out before, extremist right party existed and were quick to fall short in voters, I was only making the argument that circle jerking around how bad Nazism was wouldn't help but rather damage the image of "non Nazi". If this circlejerk happens and at what scale it's not in my knowledge so maybe I just have my facts ( or rather lack of them ) wrong and this is a non issue. Also 1+1 = 2 vs 1+1 = 3 is a whole other thing because we are trying to compare exact science to politics and ideologies. I get the point but i would say it doesn't really work the same way, you can always have an argument for any policy no matter how outrageous because it is in the end subjective and no policy whatsoever is the " RIGHT " but you can never have one for 1+1 = 3 because 1+1 = 2 is objectively the absolute truth. You can have arguments for some evil policies, but that just makes you evil. It is as easy as that. Nazi ideology is not some squabble about taxes and even not the debate about abortion. Good and evil are not as subjective as some people think they are, but that would take us to a discussion that I had in other threads often enough. As for the rest, with your more specific explanation, I get what you are trying to say, but there is no need for some knee-jerk examples of why nazis are bad in schools, there are plenty of clear examples for everyone to see. No circle-jerk is needed for any sane person to not embrace nazism after having objective, but sufficiently exhaustive, lesson on nazism. morality is massively subjective and not applicable to history. Genocide has always been a part of human behaviour. The means might have changed but as long as the outcome does not, there is barely a noteworthy difference. The only difference is that it's used by nations and partys more aggressively to discredit certain states, nations, partys or groups.
I see no point discussing with someone who thinks genocide might be a "good" thing. Note that I qualified my statement with "any sane person".
|
On November 15 2012 04:51 Xiron wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 03:59 mcc wrote:
Nazism is (no matter which flavor) evil either as ideology or as practical implementation. Or do you think that wars, racism or genocide are not evil ? Non-evil people seeing nazism for what it really is means that they will never want to embrace it. Thus if education presents nazism as it truly is convincingly enough it will prevent people from embracing it. And that is success.
Subjective much. One can't define what's truly evil because that's purely based on one's own perception.
There is no reason to define it. Evil is what overwhelming number of people consider evil. Of course this is simplified as my concept of evil is not really based on popularity contest, but rather on what biology dictates to us about what is and is not evil. Conscience, empathy, fairness all those concepts are biologically coded into our brains (and many animals). Those define our morality.
People know what is good and evil pretty instinctively and on things that we discuss in this thread agree in pretty one-sided fashion. It is not really subjective as biology forces it, it is not truly objective also, but why should it matter.
|
Holy crap, so much talking about such a pile of shitheads. To make it clear, even if the NPD had the power to take over Germany - which is just ridiculous - they wouldn't be smart enough to "pull a hitler" and fuck Europe over again.
I don't know if I should laugh about the complete nonsense some people post here based on stereotypes or bullshit argumentation.
Almost nobody seems to care about the circumstances that brought Hitler to power. Well if those circumstances (speak big-time economical depression) there are other things we should be worried about besides Nazis taking over Germany, because this time it will be on a global basis, not just in Germany.
The problem with the Nazi "uprising" in Germany is - IN MY OPINION - that no one has the balls to go on the streets and throw cobblestones anymore. Instead people express their anger through voting for "niche" parties and think the're doing the right thing.
The next big factor is mass media. Most people actually believe the crap that they're told by the "BILD" newspaper. It looks like only assaults by immigrants make the headline. You don't have to ask yourself, why some people get a wrong picture of foreigners.
In Eastern Germany there's also a work problem. People from e.g. Poland come here and do jobs that are totally underpaid for a German citizen. First thing that comes to mind is asparagus cutting, or in general agricultural jobs that require handywork. Companies try to make their product as cheap as possible so they pay their workers as little as possible.
Another factor are some foreigners themselves. The bad apples that ruin everything for those that just want to integrate themselves into society. As already said, mass media likes to report about those bad apples...
I think the reasons behind the uprising are to complex to discuss on an international forum like TL, because people without even the slightest clue try to post what they think. Don't get me wrong it is totally fine to post what you think, but you all can see how this thread got derailed.
|
On November 15 2012 05:05 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 04:50 sephiria wrote:On November 15 2012 04:37 mcc wrote:On November 15 2012 04:06 Aterons_toss wrote:On November 15 2012 03:59 mcc wrote:On November 15 2012 03:39 Aterons_toss wrote:
Against this background, it seems unthinkable that anyone could embrace Nazi ideals, because it's virtually impossible to grow up in Germany and not have a rather thorough understanding of them.
This is exactly the problem, if an education makes it impossible for someone to embrace fascist-like ideals than it means that education is obviously based. Nazism was bad much like communism was bad. But extreme right/extreme left ideal in general are not bad, quite the opposite, if you read any humanist philosophy you will see that similar systems were proposed and they could have even in recent days worked quite well "theoretically". The Nazi in 20 century Germany were not evil incarnate as a "philosophy", indeed they were not worse than current American and European governs protecting the church and it's rights even tho the church is openly sexists and some of them ( most ) heavily racist as well. Nazi didn't want all the Jews, blacks, Chinese... etc dead, only some extremist got that far ( and it was due to monetary reasons mostly ), they did believe race inequality and had a right extreme doctrine which is obviously going to be far less than a success when applied in a real situation. If you teach this at school instead " EVERYTHING NAZI IS EVIL INCARNATE" than you are likely to only have a very small majority of people believe nazi was " the right thing " and that silent minority will never be able to grow much like extremist of any kind haven't been able to grow in current 1st world countries. But if you portray it as the pure evil than it will get people to question the information they are given and actually say "maybe they are the bad guys and trying to make the Nazi look bad". Twisting the truth and hammering on an issue such as Nazi only to make sure it never comes back is really silly in this day and age. Not that there are any chances it would in Germany at any rate, but you would likely see less of this if they had not done that. Or maybe if education makes it impossible for someone to embrace nazism it succeeded spectacularly. Because that is the goal of education, to form people so they are able to function in society. Nazism is (no matter which flavor) evil either as ideology or as practical implementation. Or do you think that wars, racism or genocide are not evil ? Non-evil people seeing nazism for what it really is means that they will never want to embrace it. Thus if education presents nazism as it truly is convincingly enough it will prevent people from embracing it. And that is success. What you are saying is basically the same as someone saying that if education makes it impossible for someone to embrace that 1+1=3, then it is biased. Which I hope you can clearly see as nonsense. Well your are from a country that has much stronger connections to Germany in general from what i know and you likely know more about their education system than me since i was drawing conclusion based on a few posts. If the education system isn't bias to the issue than it's likely that this will never become a problem in Germany... nor would it if it was and to be honest discussing this is kind pointless since, as was pointed out before, extremist right party existed and were quick to fall short in voters, I was only making the argument that circle jerking around how bad Nazism was wouldn't help but rather damage the image of "non Nazi". If this circlejerk happens and at what scale it's not in my knowledge so maybe I just have my facts ( or rather lack of them ) wrong and this is a non issue. Also 1+1 = 2 vs 1+1 = 3 is a whole other thing because we are trying to compare exact science to politics and ideologies. I get the point but i would say it doesn't really work the same way, you can always have an argument for any policy no matter how outrageous because it is in the end subjective and no policy whatsoever is the " RIGHT " but you can never have one for 1+1 = 3 because 1+1 = 2 is objectively the absolute truth. You can have arguments for some evil policies, but that just makes you evil. It is as easy as that. Nazi ideology is not some squabble about taxes and even not the debate about abortion. Good and evil are not as subjective as some people think they are, but that would take us to a discussion that I had in other threads often enough. As for the rest, with your more specific explanation, I get what you are trying to say, but there is no need for some knee-jerk examples of why nazis are bad in schools, there are plenty of clear examples for everyone to see. No circle-jerk is needed for any sane person to not embrace nazism after having objective, but sufficiently exhaustive, lesson on nazism. morality is massively subjective and not applicable to history. Genocide has always been a part of human behaviour. The means might have changed but as long as the outcome does not, there is barely a noteworthy difference. The only difference is that it's used by nations and partys more aggressively to discredit certain states, nations, partys or groups. I see no point discussing with someone who thinks genocide might be a "good" thing. Note that I qualified my statement with "any sane person".
The question why genocides happen has caused headaches for a lot of scholars. There are a lot of answers to that question. "The antichrist did come down to the world and infected nations" was never an option, neither was "well, everyone just goes insane." So there must be a factor which leads to people accepting the concept as 'good' in certain circumstances (for romans during the imperial era it was not an evil concept). The actual findings of that historical branch are really interesting.
Of course you can also just remain on your horse of morality and look down on people that actually know what they are talking about.
|
On November 15 2012 05:21 sephiria wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 05:05 mcc wrote:On November 15 2012 04:50 sephiria wrote:On November 15 2012 04:37 mcc wrote:On November 15 2012 04:06 Aterons_toss wrote:On November 15 2012 03:59 mcc wrote:On November 15 2012 03:39 Aterons_toss wrote:
Against this background, it seems unthinkable that anyone could embrace Nazi ideals, because it's virtually impossible to grow up in Germany and not have a rather thorough understanding of them.
This is exactly the problem, if an education makes it impossible for someone to embrace fascist-like ideals than it means that education is obviously based. Nazism was bad much like communism was bad. But extreme right/extreme left ideal in general are not bad, quite the opposite, if you read any humanist philosophy you will see that similar systems were proposed and they could have even in recent days worked quite well "theoretically". The Nazi in 20 century Germany were not evil incarnate as a "philosophy", indeed they were not worse than current American and European governs protecting the church and it's rights even tho the church is openly sexists and some of them ( most ) heavily racist as well. Nazi didn't want all the Jews, blacks, Chinese... etc dead, only some extremist got that far ( and it was due to monetary reasons mostly ), they did believe race inequality and had a right extreme doctrine which is obviously going to be far less than a success when applied in a real situation. If you teach this at school instead " EVERYTHING NAZI IS EVIL INCARNATE" than you are likely to only have a very small majority of people believe nazi was " the right thing " and that silent minority will never be able to grow much like extremist of any kind haven't been able to grow in current 1st world countries. But if you portray it as the pure evil than it will get people to question the information they are given and actually say "maybe they are the bad guys and trying to make the Nazi look bad". Twisting the truth and hammering on an issue such as Nazi only to make sure it never comes back is really silly in this day and age. Not that there are any chances it would in Germany at any rate, but you would likely see less of this if they had not done that. Or maybe if education makes it impossible for someone to embrace nazism it succeeded spectacularly. Because that is the goal of education, to form people so they are able to function in society. Nazism is (no matter which flavor) evil either as ideology or as practical implementation. Or do you think that wars, racism or genocide are not evil ? Non-evil people seeing nazism for what it really is means that they will never want to embrace it. Thus if education presents nazism as it truly is convincingly enough it will prevent people from embracing it. And that is success. What you are saying is basically the same as someone saying that if education makes it impossible for someone to embrace that 1+1=3, then it is biased. Which I hope you can clearly see as nonsense. Well your are from a country that has much stronger connections to Germany in general from what i know and you likely know more about their education system than me since i was drawing conclusion based on a few posts. If the education system isn't bias to the issue than it's likely that this will never become a problem in Germany... nor would it if it was and to be honest discussing this is kind pointless since, as was pointed out before, extremist right party existed and were quick to fall short in voters, I was only making the argument that circle jerking around how bad Nazism was wouldn't help but rather damage the image of "non Nazi". If this circlejerk happens and at what scale it's not in my knowledge so maybe I just have my facts ( or rather lack of them ) wrong and this is a non issue. Also 1+1 = 2 vs 1+1 = 3 is a whole other thing because we are trying to compare exact science to politics and ideologies. I get the point but i would say it doesn't really work the same way, you can always have an argument for any policy no matter how outrageous because it is in the end subjective and no policy whatsoever is the " RIGHT " but you can never have one for 1+1 = 3 because 1+1 = 2 is objectively the absolute truth. You can have arguments for some evil policies, but that just makes you evil. It is as easy as that. Nazi ideology is not some squabble about taxes and even not the debate about abortion. Good and evil are not as subjective as some people think they are, but that would take us to a discussion that I had in other threads often enough. As for the rest, with your more specific explanation, I get what you are trying to say, but there is no need for some knee-jerk examples of why nazis are bad in schools, there are plenty of clear examples for everyone to see. No circle-jerk is needed for any sane person to not embrace nazism after having objective, but sufficiently exhaustive, lesson on nazism. morality is massively subjective and not applicable to history. Genocide has always been a part of human behaviour. The means might have changed but as long as the outcome does not, there is barely a noteworthy difference. The only difference is that it's used by nations and partys more aggressively to discredit certain states, nations, partys or groups. I see no point discussing with someone who thinks genocide might be a "good" thing. Note that I qualified my statement with "any sane person". The question why genocides happen has caused headaches for a lot of scholars. There are a lot of answers to that question. "The antichrist did come down to the world and infected nations" was never an option, neither was "well, everyone just goes insane." So there must be a factor which leads to people accepting the concept as 'good' in certain circumstances (for romans during the imperial era it was not an evil concept). The actual findings of that historical branch are really interesting. Of course you can also just remain on your horse of morality and look down on people that actually know what they are talking about.
Discussing why genocides happen is not the same as saying morality is all relative and genocide might be good. Since we can pretty much be sure that such a big number of people are not all complete psychopaths, big prerequisite for genocides seems to be ideological brainwashing to make the target population not-really-same-as-us/not-really-human. After that thanks to our ability to override our instincts you can do evil things even when you are not completely evil person.
|
>2012
>Still think Hitler's nazi party is the same as neonazi's
But seriously, I wanna see where these neonazi get to. Probably wont get further than the KKK.
|
On November 15 2012 05:27 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 05:21 sephiria wrote:On November 15 2012 05:05 mcc wrote:On November 15 2012 04:50 sephiria wrote:On November 15 2012 04:37 mcc wrote:On November 15 2012 04:06 Aterons_toss wrote:On November 15 2012 03:59 mcc wrote:On November 15 2012 03:39 Aterons_toss wrote:
Against this background, it seems unthinkable that anyone could embrace Nazi ideals, because it's virtually impossible to grow up in Germany and not have a rather thorough understanding of them.
This is exactly the problem, if an education makes it impossible for someone to embrace fascist-like ideals than it means that education is obviously based. Nazism was bad much like communism was bad. But extreme right/extreme left ideal in general are not bad, quite the opposite, if you read any humanist philosophy you will see that similar systems were proposed and they could have even in recent days worked quite well "theoretically". The Nazi in 20 century Germany were not evil incarnate as a "philosophy", indeed they were not worse than current American and European governs protecting the church and it's rights even tho the church is openly sexists and some of them ( most ) heavily racist as well. Nazi didn't want all the Jews, blacks, Chinese... etc dead, only some extremist got that far ( and it was due to monetary reasons mostly ), they did believe race inequality and had a right extreme doctrine which is obviously going to be far less than a success when applied in a real situation. If you teach this at school instead " EVERYTHING NAZI IS EVIL INCARNATE" than you are likely to only have a very small majority of people believe nazi was " the right thing " and that silent minority will never be able to grow much like extremist of any kind haven't been able to grow in current 1st world countries. But if you portray it as the pure evil than it will get people to question the information they are given and actually say "maybe they are the bad guys and trying to make the Nazi look bad". Twisting the truth and hammering on an issue such as Nazi only to make sure it never comes back is really silly in this day and age. Not that there are any chances it would in Germany at any rate, but you would likely see less of this if they had not done that. Or maybe if education makes it impossible for someone to embrace nazism it succeeded spectacularly. Because that is the goal of education, to form people so they are able to function in society. Nazism is (no matter which flavor) evil either as ideology or as practical implementation. Or do you think that wars, racism or genocide are not evil ? Non-evil people seeing nazism for what it really is means that they will never want to embrace it. Thus if education presents nazism as it truly is convincingly enough it will prevent people from embracing it. And that is success. What you are saying is basically the same as someone saying that if education makes it impossible for someone to embrace that 1+1=3, then it is biased. Which I hope you can clearly see as nonsense. Well your are from a country that has much stronger connections to Germany in general from what i know and you likely know more about their education system than me since i was drawing conclusion based on a few posts. If the education system isn't bias to the issue than it's likely that this will never become a problem in Germany... nor would it if it was and to be honest discussing this is kind pointless since, as was pointed out before, extremist right party existed and were quick to fall short in voters, I was only making the argument that circle jerking around how bad Nazism was wouldn't help but rather damage the image of "non Nazi". If this circlejerk happens and at what scale it's not in my knowledge so maybe I just have my facts ( or rather lack of them ) wrong and this is a non issue. Also 1+1 = 2 vs 1+1 = 3 is a whole other thing because we are trying to compare exact science to politics and ideologies. I get the point but i would say it doesn't really work the same way, you can always have an argument for any policy no matter how outrageous because it is in the end subjective and no policy whatsoever is the " RIGHT " but you can never have one for 1+1 = 3 because 1+1 = 2 is objectively the absolute truth. You can have arguments for some evil policies, but that just makes you evil. It is as easy as that. Nazi ideology is not some squabble about taxes and even not the debate about abortion. Good and evil are not as subjective as some people think they are, but that would take us to a discussion that I had in other threads often enough. As for the rest, with your more specific explanation, I get what you are trying to say, but there is no need for some knee-jerk examples of why nazis are bad in schools, there are plenty of clear examples for everyone to see. No circle-jerk is needed for any sane person to not embrace nazism after having objective, but sufficiently exhaustive, lesson on nazism. morality is massively subjective and not applicable to history. Genocide has always been a part of human behaviour. The means might have changed but as long as the outcome does not, there is barely a noteworthy difference. The only difference is that it's used by nations and partys more aggressively to discredit certain states, nations, partys or groups. I see no point discussing with someone who thinks genocide might be a "good" thing. Note that I qualified my statement with "any sane person". The question why genocides happen has caused headaches for a lot of scholars. There are a lot of answers to that question. "The antichrist did come down to the world and infected nations" was never an option, neither was "well, everyone just goes insane." So there must be a factor which leads to people accepting the concept as 'good' in certain circumstances (for romans during the imperial era it was not an evil concept). The actual findings of that historical branch are really interesting. Of course you can also just remain on your horse of morality and look down on people that actually know what they are talking about. Discussing why genocides happen is not the same as saying morality is all relative and genocide might be good. Since we can pretty much be sure that such a big number of people are not all complete psychopaths, big prerequisite for genocides seems to be ideological brainwashing to make the target population not-really-same-as-us/not-really-human. After that thanks to our ability to override our instincts you can do evil things even when you are not completely evil person.
so there was morality in our genes. And it magically popped up after ww2? (or was "found"?). And since that point, we know what is wrong and what is right. Everyone else just doesn't know, and our ancestors never knew. And, if (or rather: when) in the future, it happens again, everyone just went insane? Well, I am starting to see the ideological brainwashing, but on another side.
|
On November 15 2012 05:21 sephiria wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 05:05 mcc wrote:On November 15 2012 04:50 sephiria wrote:On November 15 2012 04:37 mcc wrote:On November 15 2012 04:06 Aterons_toss wrote:On November 15 2012 03:59 mcc wrote:On November 15 2012 03:39 Aterons_toss wrote:
Against this background, it seems unthinkable that anyone could embrace Nazi ideals, because it's virtually impossible to grow up in Germany and not have a rather thorough understanding of them.
This is exactly the problem, if an education makes it impossible for someone to embrace fascist-like ideals than it means that education is obviously based. Nazism was bad much like communism was bad. But extreme right/extreme left ideal in general are not bad, quite the opposite, if you read any humanist philosophy you will see that similar systems were proposed and they could have even in recent days worked quite well "theoretically". The Nazi in 20 century Germany were not evil incarnate as a "philosophy", indeed they were not worse than current American and European governs protecting the church and it's rights even tho the church is openly sexists and some of them ( most ) heavily racist as well. Nazi didn't want all the Jews, blacks, Chinese... etc dead, only some extremist got that far ( and it was due to monetary reasons mostly ), they did believe race inequality and had a right extreme doctrine which is obviously going to be far less than a success when applied in a real situation. If you teach this at school instead " EVERYTHING NAZI IS EVIL INCARNATE" than you are likely to only have a very small majority of people believe nazi was " the right thing " and that silent minority will never be able to grow much like extremist of any kind haven't been able to grow in current 1st world countries. But if you portray it as the pure evil than it will get people to question the information they are given and actually say "maybe they are the bad guys and trying to make the Nazi look bad". Twisting the truth and hammering on an issue such as Nazi only to make sure it never comes back is really silly in this day and age. Not that there are any chances it would in Germany at any rate, but you would likely see less of this if they had not done that. Or maybe if education makes it impossible for someone to embrace nazism it succeeded spectacularly. Because that is the goal of education, to form people so they are able to function in society. Nazism is (no matter which flavor) evil either as ideology or as practical implementation. Or do you think that wars, racism or genocide are not evil ? Non-evil people seeing nazism for what it really is means that they will never want to embrace it. Thus if education presents nazism as it truly is convincingly enough it will prevent people from embracing it. And that is success. What you are saying is basically the same as someone saying that if education makes it impossible for someone to embrace that 1+1=3, then it is biased. Which I hope you can clearly see as nonsense. Well your are from a country that has much stronger connections to Germany in general from what i know and you likely know more about their education system than me since i was drawing conclusion based on a few posts. If the education system isn't bias to the issue than it's likely that this will never become a problem in Germany... nor would it if it was and to be honest discussing this is kind pointless since, as was pointed out before, extremist right party existed and were quick to fall short in voters, I was only making the argument that circle jerking around how bad Nazism was wouldn't help but rather damage the image of "non Nazi". If this circlejerk happens and at what scale it's not in my knowledge so maybe I just have my facts ( or rather lack of them ) wrong and this is a non issue. Also 1+1 = 2 vs 1+1 = 3 is a whole other thing because we are trying to compare exact science to politics and ideologies. I get the point but i would say it doesn't really work the same way, you can always have an argument for any policy no matter how outrageous because it is in the end subjective and no policy whatsoever is the " RIGHT " but you can never have one for 1+1 = 3 because 1+1 = 2 is objectively the absolute truth. You can have arguments for some evil policies, but that just makes you evil. It is as easy as that. Nazi ideology is not some squabble about taxes and even not the debate about abortion. Good and evil are not as subjective as some people think they are, but that would take us to a discussion that I had in other threads often enough. As for the rest, with your more specific explanation, I get what you are trying to say, but there is no need for some knee-jerk examples of why nazis are bad in schools, there are plenty of clear examples for everyone to see. No circle-jerk is needed for any sane person to not embrace nazism after having objective, but sufficiently exhaustive, lesson on nazism. morality is massively subjective and not applicable to history. Genocide has always been a part of human behaviour. The means might have changed but as long as the outcome does not, there is barely a noteworthy difference. The only difference is that it's used by nations and partys more aggressively to discredit certain states, nations, partys or groups. I see no point discussing with someone who thinks genocide might be a "good" thing. Note that I qualified my statement with "any sane person". The question why genocides happen has caused headaches for a lot of scholars. There are a lot of answers to that question. "The antichrist did come down to the world and infected nations" was never an option, neither was "well, everyone just goes insane." So there must be a factor which leads to people accepting the concept as 'good' in certain circumstances (for romans during the imperial era it was not an evil concept). The actual findings of that historical branch are really interesting. Of course you can also just remain on your horse of morality and look down on people that actually know what they are talking about.
You don't need to be a scholar to see that genocide is bad. While morality is subjective, anyone that argues genocides might be morally acceptable is a person that I'd call an idiot and morally despiccable and not worth to further discuss with. That's my own, personal and totally subjective standpoint.
|
On November 15 2012 05:36 ACrow wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 05:21 sephiria wrote:On November 15 2012 05:05 mcc wrote:On November 15 2012 04:50 sephiria wrote:On November 15 2012 04:37 mcc wrote:On November 15 2012 04:06 Aterons_toss wrote:On November 15 2012 03:59 mcc wrote:On November 15 2012 03:39 Aterons_toss wrote:
Against this background, it seems unthinkable that anyone could embrace Nazi ideals, because it's virtually impossible to grow up in Germany and not have a rather thorough understanding of them.
This is exactly the problem, if an education makes it impossible for someone to embrace fascist-like ideals than it means that education is obviously based. Nazism was bad much like communism was bad. But extreme right/extreme left ideal in general are not bad, quite the opposite, if you read any humanist philosophy you will see that similar systems were proposed and they could have even in recent days worked quite well "theoretically". The Nazi in 20 century Germany were not evil incarnate as a "philosophy", indeed they were not worse than current American and European governs protecting the church and it's rights even tho the church is openly sexists and some of them ( most ) heavily racist as well. Nazi didn't want all the Jews, blacks, Chinese... etc dead, only some extremist got that far ( and it was due to monetary reasons mostly ), they did believe race inequality and had a right extreme doctrine which is obviously going to be far less than a success when applied in a real situation. If you teach this at school instead " EVERYTHING NAZI IS EVIL INCARNATE" than you are likely to only have a very small majority of people believe nazi was " the right thing " and that silent minority will never be able to grow much like extremist of any kind haven't been able to grow in current 1st world countries. But if you portray it as the pure evil than it will get people to question the information they are given and actually say "maybe they are the bad guys and trying to make the Nazi look bad". Twisting the truth and hammering on an issue such as Nazi only to make sure it never comes back is really silly in this day and age. Not that there are any chances it would in Germany at any rate, but you would likely see less of this if they had not done that. Or maybe if education makes it impossible for someone to embrace nazism it succeeded spectacularly. Because that is the goal of education, to form people so they are able to function in society. Nazism is (no matter which flavor) evil either as ideology or as practical implementation. Or do you think that wars, racism or genocide are not evil ? Non-evil people seeing nazism for what it really is means that they will never want to embrace it. Thus if education presents nazism as it truly is convincingly enough it will prevent people from embracing it. And that is success. What you are saying is basically the same as someone saying that if education makes it impossible for someone to embrace that 1+1=3, then it is biased. Which I hope you can clearly see as nonsense. Well your are from a country that has much stronger connections to Germany in general from what i know and you likely know more about their education system than me since i was drawing conclusion based on a few posts. If the education system isn't bias to the issue than it's likely that this will never become a problem in Germany... nor would it if it was and to be honest discussing this is kind pointless since, as was pointed out before, extremist right party existed and were quick to fall short in voters, I was only making the argument that circle jerking around how bad Nazism was wouldn't help but rather damage the image of "non Nazi". If this circlejerk happens and at what scale it's not in my knowledge so maybe I just have my facts ( or rather lack of them ) wrong and this is a non issue. Also 1+1 = 2 vs 1+1 = 3 is a whole other thing because we are trying to compare exact science to politics and ideologies. I get the point but i would say it doesn't really work the same way, you can always have an argument for any policy no matter how outrageous because it is in the end subjective and no policy whatsoever is the " RIGHT " but you can never have one for 1+1 = 3 because 1+1 = 2 is objectively the absolute truth. You can have arguments for some evil policies, but that just makes you evil. It is as easy as that. Nazi ideology is not some squabble about taxes and even not the debate about abortion. Good and evil are not as subjective as some people think they are, but that would take us to a discussion that I had in other threads often enough. As for the rest, with your more specific explanation, I get what you are trying to say, but there is no need for some knee-jerk examples of why nazis are bad in schools, there are plenty of clear examples for everyone to see. No circle-jerk is needed for any sane person to not embrace nazism after having objective, but sufficiently exhaustive, lesson on nazism. morality is massively subjective and not applicable to history. Genocide has always been a part of human behaviour. The means might have changed but as long as the outcome does not, there is barely a noteworthy difference. The only difference is that it's used by nations and partys more aggressively to discredit certain states, nations, partys or groups. I see no point discussing with someone who thinks genocide might be a "good" thing. Note that I qualified my statement with "any sane person". The question why genocides happen has caused headaches for a lot of scholars. There are a lot of answers to that question. "The antichrist did come down to the world and infected nations" was never an option, neither was "well, everyone just goes insane." So there must be a factor which leads to people accepting the concept as 'good' in certain circumstances (for romans during the imperial era it was not an evil concept). The actual findings of that historical branch are really interesting. Of course you can also just remain on your horse of morality and look down on people that actually know what they are talking about. You don't need to be a scholar to see that genocide is bad. While morality is subjective, anyone that argues genocides might be morally acceptable is a person that I'd call an idiot and morally despiccable and not worth to further discuss with. That's my own, personal and totally subjective standpoint.
You seem to be confusing scientific (history is classified as a science in the german language@non-germans) approach with the standpoint of me personally. I never said that I like genocide or that I think it is or even can be good, but THIS opinion (and yours) is based on my own perception of what is morally acceptable. For most of the time, the human race didnt give a flying fuck about morality when it came to people they did not see as part of their own society.
I just tried point out that if you look at certain points in history you can NOT just say everyone is evil. That is highly unscientific and you would fail every course in history with that attitude.
|
On November 15 2012 05:21 sephiria wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 05:05 mcc wrote:On November 15 2012 04:50 sephiria wrote:On November 15 2012 04:37 mcc wrote:On November 15 2012 04:06 Aterons_toss wrote:On November 15 2012 03:59 mcc wrote:On November 15 2012 03:39 Aterons_toss wrote:
Against this background, it seems unthinkable that anyone could embrace Nazi ideals, because it's virtually impossible to grow up in Germany and not have a rather thorough understanding of them.
This is exactly the problem, if an education makes it impossible for someone to embrace fascist-like ideals than it means that education is obviously based. Nazism was bad much like communism was bad. But extreme right/extreme left ideal in general are not bad, quite the opposite, if you read any humanist philosophy you will see that similar systems were proposed and they could have even in recent days worked quite well "theoretically". The Nazi in 20 century Germany were not evil incarnate as a "philosophy", indeed they were not worse than current American and European governs protecting the church and it's rights even tho the church is openly sexists and some of them ( most ) heavily racist as well. Nazi didn't want all the Jews, blacks, Chinese... etc dead, only some extremist got that far ( and it was due to monetary reasons mostly ), they did believe race inequality and had a right extreme doctrine which is obviously going to be far less than a success when applied in a real situation. If you teach this at school instead " EVERYTHING NAZI IS EVIL INCARNATE" than you are likely to only have a very small majority of people believe nazi was " the right thing " and that silent minority will never be able to grow much like extremist of any kind haven't been able to grow in current 1st world countries. But if you portray it as the pure evil than it will get people to question the information they are given and actually say "maybe they are the bad guys and trying to make the Nazi look bad". Twisting the truth and hammering on an issue such as Nazi only to make sure it never comes back is really silly in this day and age. Not that there are any chances it would in Germany at any rate, but you would likely see less of this if they had not done that. Or maybe if education makes it impossible for someone to embrace nazism it succeeded spectacularly. Because that is the goal of education, to form people so they are able to function in society. Nazism is (no matter which flavor) evil either as ideology or as practical implementation. Or do you think that wars, racism or genocide are not evil ? Non-evil people seeing nazism for what it really is means that they will never want to embrace it. Thus if education presents nazism as it truly is convincingly enough it will prevent people from embracing it. And that is success. What you are saying is basically the same as someone saying that if education makes it impossible for someone to embrace that 1+1=3, then it is biased. Which I hope you can clearly see as nonsense. Well your are from a country that has much stronger connections to Germany in general from what i know and you likely know more about their education system than me since i was drawing conclusion based on a few posts. If the education system isn't bias to the issue than it's likely that this will never become a problem in Germany... nor would it if it was and to be honest discussing this is kind pointless since, as was pointed out before, extremist right party existed and were quick to fall short in voters, I was only making the argument that circle jerking around how bad Nazism was wouldn't help but rather damage the image of "non Nazi". If this circlejerk happens and at what scale it's not in my knowledge so maybe I just have my facts ( or rather lack of them ) wrong and this is a non issue. Also 1+1 = 2 vs 1+1 = 3 is a whole other thing because we are trying to compare exact science to politics and ideologies. I get the point but i would say it doesn't really work the same way, you can always have an argument for any policy no matter how outrageous because it is in the end subjective and no policy whatsoever is the " RIGHT " but you can never have one for 1+1 = 3 because 1+1 = 2 is objectively the absolute truth. You can have arguments for some evil policies, but that just makes you evil. It is as easy as that. Nazi ideology is not some squabble about taxes and even not the debate about abortion. Good and evil are not as subjective as some people think they are, but that would take us to a discussion that I had in other threads often enough. As for the rest, with your more specific explanation, I get what you are trying to say, but there is no need for some knee-jerk examples of why nazis are bad in schools, there are plenty of clear examples for everyone to see. No circle-jerk is needed for any sane person to not embrace nazism after having objective, but sufficiently exhaustive, lesson on nazism. morality is massively subjective and not applicable to history. Genocide has always been a part of human behaviour. The means might have changed but as long as the outcome does not, there is barely a noteworthy difference. The only difference is that it's used by nations and partys more aggressively to discredit certain states, nations, partys or groups. I see no point discussing with someone who thinks genocide might be a "good" thing. Note that I qualified my statement with "any sane person". The question why genocides happen has caused headaches for a lot of scholars. There are a lot of answers to that question. "The antichrist did come down to the world and infected nations" was never an option, neither was "well, everyone just goes insane." So there must be a factor which leads to people accepting the concept as 'good' in certain circumstances (for romans during the imperial era it was not an evil concept). The actual findings of that historical branch are really interesting. Of course you can also just remain on your horse of morality and look down on people that actually know what they are talking about.
If you are interested in the subject, science labels this topic "group related human hostility". Myriad of papers and hypothesises.
|
On November 15 2012 05:21 sephiria wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 05:05 mcc wrote:On November 15 2012 04:50 sephiria wrote:On November 15 2012 04:37 mcc wrote:On November 15 2012 04:06 Aterons_toss wrote:On November 15 2012 03:59 mcc wrote:On November 15 2012 03:39 Aterons_toss wrote:
Against this background, it seems unthinkable that anyone could embrace Nazi ideals, because it's virtually impossible to grow up in Germany and not have a rather thorough understanding of them.
This is exactly the problem, if an education makes it impossible for someone to embrace fascist-like ideals than it means that education is obviously based. Nazism was bad much like communism was bad. But extreme right/extreme left ideal in general are not bad, quite the opposite, if you read any humanist philosophy you will see that similar systems were proposed and they could have even in recent days worked quite well "theoretically". The Nazi in 20 century Germany were not evil incarnate as a "philosophy", indeed they were not worse than current American and European governs protecting the church and it's rights even tho the church is openly sexists and some of them ( most ) heavily racist as well. Nazi didn't want all the Jews, blacks, Chinese... etc dead, only some extremist got that far ( and it was due to monetary reasons mostly ), they did believe race inequality and had a right extreme doctrine which is obviously going to be far less than a success when applied in a real situation. If you teach this at school instead " EVERYTHING NAZI IS EVIL INCARNATE" than you are likely to only have a very small majority of people believe nazi was " the right thing " and that silent minority will never be able to grow much like extremist of any kind haven't been able to grow in current 1st world countries. But if you portray it as the pure evil than it will get people to question the information they are given and actually say "maybe they are the bad guys and trying to make the Nazi look bad". Twisting the truth and hammering on an issue such as Nazi only to make sure it never comes back is really silly in this day and age. Not that there are any chances it would in Germany at any rate, but you would likely see less of this if they had not done that. Or maybe if education makes it impossible for someone to embrace nazism it succeeded spectacularly. Because that is the goal of education, to form people so they are able to function in society. Nazism is (no matter which flavor) evil either as ideology or as practical implementation. Or do you think that wars, racism or genocide are not evil ? Non-evil people seeing nazism for what it really is means that they will never want to embrace it. Thus if education presents nazism as it truly is convincingly enough it will prevent people from embracing it. And that is success. What you are saying is basically the same as someone saying that if education makes it impossible for someone to embrace that 1+1=3, then it is biased. Which I hope you can clearly see as nonsense. Well your are from a country that has much stronger connections to Germany in general from what i know and you likely know more about their education system than me since i was drawing conclusion based on a few posts. If the education system isn't bias to the issue than it's likely that this will never become a problem in Germany... nor would it if it was and to be honest discussing this is kind pointless since, as was pointed out before, extremist right party existed and were quick to fall short in voters, I was only making the argument that circle jerking around how bad Nazism was wouldn't help but rather damage the image of "non Nazi". If this circlejerk happens and at what scale it's not in my knowledge so maybe I just have my facts ( or rather lack of them ) wrong and this is a non issue. Also 1+1 = 2 vs 1+1 = 3 is a whole other thing because we are trying to compare exact science to politics and ideologies. I get the point but i would say it doesn't really work the same way, you can always have an argument for any policy no matter how outrageous because it is in the end subjective and no policy whatsoever is the " RIGHT " but you can never have one for 1+1 = 3 because 1+1 = 2 is objectively the absolute truth. You can have arguments for some evil policies, but that just makes you evil. It is as easy as that. Nazi ideology is not some squabble about taxes and even not the debate about abortion. Good and evil are not as subjective as some people think they are, but that would take us to a discussion that I had in other threads often enough. As for the rest, with your more specific explanation, I get what you are trying to say, but there is no need for some knee-jerk examples of why nazis are bad in schools, there are plenty of clear examples for everyone to see. No circle-jerk is needed for any sane person to not embrace nazism after having objective, but sufficiently exhaustive, lesson on nazism. morality is massively subjective and not applicable to history. Genocide has always been a part of human behaviour. The means might have changed but as long as the outcome does not, there is barely a noteworthy difference. The only difference is that it's used by nations and partys more aggressively to discredit certain states, nations, partys or groups. I see no point discussing with someone who thinks genocide might be a "good" thing. Note that I qualified my statement with "any sane person". The question why genocides happen has caused headaches for a lot of scholars. There are a lot of answers to that question. "The antichrist did come down to the world and infected nations" was never an option, neither was "well, everyone just goes insane." So there must be a factor which leads to people accepting the concept as 'good' in certain circumstances (for romans during the imperial era it was not an evil concept). The actual findings of that historical branch are really interesting. Of course you can also just remain on your horse of morality and look down on people that actually know what they are talking about.
._. it just means that the human psyche is manipulable and that morality or logic systems innate to human beings are not enforced absolutely or universally, similar to any other animal. Being a scholar or being more intelligent doesn't make you "more" moral, it just means that you can formulate more complex ideas and logic constructs for your morality system. An intelligent person can still be completely ill informed or consciously make the decision to undertake immoral actions, if anything a more complex array of immoral (along with moral) actions are available to him as the result of having the tools to formulate such ideas.
When it comes down to it all it tells us is that we as a species still haven't evolved past the societal constructs of basic social mammals and it's possible to define the limit / scope of the group that we care about arbitrarily due to how complex and gifted our intellect is. If you have no stake or do not consider the party that you are infringing human at all then you can commit any combination of atrocious behavior because that's not even with in your morality system, we don't exert the same set of rules for humans as we do to animals which we can readily label as food, entertainment, or pests. Extending that definition to people who aren't like us, have offended or hurt us, are ideologically different in the most principled ways isn't difficult at all.
|
On November 15 2012 05:36 ACrow wrote:
You don't need to be a scholar to see that genocide is bad. While morality is subjective, anyone that argues genocides might be morally acceptable is a person that I'd call an idiot and morally despiccable and not worth to further discuss with. That's my own, personal and totally subjective standpoint.
And ignorant, narrow-minded and all in all uneducated. But whatever..
|
On November 15 2012 05:53 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 05:21 sephiria wrote:On November 15 2012 05:05 mcc wrote:On November 15 2012 04:50 sephiria wrote:On November 15 2012 04:37 mcc wrote:On November 15 2012 04:06 Aterons_toss wrote:On November 15 2012 03:59 mcc wrote:On November 15 2012 03:39 Aterons_toss wrote:
Against this background, it seems unthinkable that anyone could embrace Nazi ideals, because it's virtually impossible to grow up in Germany and not have a rather thorough understanding of them.
This is exactly the problem, if an education makes it impossible for someone to embrace fascist-like ideals than it means that education is obviously based. Nazism was bad much like communism was bad. But extreme right/extreme left ideal in general are not bad, quite the opposite, if you read any humanist philosophy you will see that similar systems were proposed and they could have even in recent days worked quite well "theoretically". The Nazi in 20 century Germany were not evil incarnate as a "philosophy", indeed they were not worse than current American and European governs protecting the church and it's rights even tho the church is openly sexists and some of them ( most ) heavily racist as well. Nazi didn't want all the Jews, blacks, Chinese... etc dead, only some extremist got that far ( and it was due to monetary reasons mostly ), they did believe race inequality and had a right extreme doctrine which is obviously going to be far less than a success when applied in a real situation. If you teach this at school instead " EVERYTHING NAZI IS EVIL INCARNATE" than you are likely to only have a very small majority of people believe nazi was " the right thing " and that silent minority will never be able to grow much like extremist of any kind haven't been able to grow in current 1st world countries. But if you portray it as the pure evil than it will get people to question the information they are given and actually say "maybe they are the bad guys and trying to make the Nazi look bad". Twisting the truth and hammering on an issue such as Nazi only to make sure it never comes back is really silly in this day and age. Not that there are any chances it would in Germany at any rate, but you would likely see less of this if they had not done that. Or maybe if education makes it impossible for someone to embrace nazism it succeeded spectacularly. Because that is the goal of education, to form people so they are able to function in society. Nazism is (no matter which flavor) evil either as ideology or as practical implementation. Or do you think that wars, racism or genocide are not evil ? Non-evil people seeing nazism for what it really is means that they will never want to embrace it. Thus if education presents nazism as it truly is convincingly enough it will prevent people from embracing it. And that is success. What you are saying is basically the same as someone saying that if education makes it impossible for someone to embrace that 1+1=3, then it is biased. Which I hope you can clearly see as nonsense. Well your are from a country that has much stronger connections to Germany in general from what i know and you likely know more about their education system than me since i was drawing conclusion based on a few posts. If the education system isn't bias to the issue than it's likely that this will never become a problem in Germany... nor would it if it was and to be honest discussing this is kind pointless since, as was pointed out before, extremist right party existed and were quick to fall short in voters, I was only making the argument that circle jerking around how bad Nazism was wouldn't help but rather damage the image of "non Nazi". If this circlejerk happens and at what scale it's not in my knowledge so maybe I just have my facts ( or rather lack of them ) wrong and this is a non issue. Also 1+1 = 2 vs 1+1 = 3 is a whole other thing because we are trying to compare exact science to politics and ideologies. I get the point but i would say it doesn't really work the same way, you can always have an argument for any policy no matter how outrageous because it is in the end subjective and no policy whatsoever is the " RIGHT " but you can never have one for 1+1 = 3 because 1+1 = 2 is objectively the absolute truth. You can have arguments for some evil policies, but that just makes you evil. It is as easy as that. Nazi ideology is not some squabble about taxes and even not the debate about abortion. Good and evil are not as subjective as some people think they are, but that would take us to a discussion that I had in other threads often enough. As for the rest, with your more specific explanation, I get what you are trying to say, but there is no need for some knee-jerk examples of why nazis are bad in schools, there are plenty of clear examples for everyone to see. No circle-jerk is needed for any sane person to not embrace nazism after having objective, but sufficiently exhaustive, lesson on nazism. morality is massively subjective and not applicable to history. Genocide has always been a part of human behaviour. The means might have changed but as long as the outcome does not, there is barely a noteworthy difference. The only difference is that it's used by nations and partys more aggressively to discredit certain states, nations, partys or groups. I see no point discussing with someone who thinks genocide might be a "good" thing. Note that I qualified my statement with "any sane person". The question why genocides happen has caused headaches for a lot of scholars. There are a lot of answers to that question. "The antichrist did come down to the world and infected nations" was never an option, neither was "well, everyone just goes insane." So there must be a factor which leads to people accepting the concept as 'good' in certain circumstances (for romans during the imperial era it was not an evil concept). The actual findings of that historical branch are really interesting. Of course you can also just remain on your horse of morality and look down on people that actually know what they are talking about. ._. it just means that the human psyche is manipulable and that morality or logic systems innate to human beings are not enforced absolutely or universally, similar to any other animal. Being a scholar or being more intelligent doesn't make you "more" moral, it just means that you can formulate more complex ideas and logic constructs for your morality system. An intelligent person can still be completely ill informed or consciously make the decision to undertake immoral actions, if anything a more complex array of immoral (along with moral) actions are available to him as the result of having the tools to formulate such ideas. When it comes down to it all it tells us is that we as a species still haven't evolved past the societal constructs of basic social mammals and it's possible to define the limit / scope of the group that we care about arbitrarily due to how complex and gifted our intellect is. If you have no stake or do not consider the party that you are infringing human at all then you can commit any combination of atrocious behavior because that's not even with in your morality system, we don't exert the same set of rules for humans as we do to animals which we can readily label as food, entertainment, or pests. Extending that definition to people who aren't like us, have offended or hurt us, are ideologically different in the most principled ways isn't difficult at all.
I don't get why you used that smiley? I think your bottom line is the same as mine.
On November 15 2012 05:47 AngryMag wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 05:21 sephiria wrote:On November 15 2012 05:05 mcc wrote:On November 15 2012 04:50 sephiria wrote:On November 15 2012 04:37 mcc wrote:On November 15 2012 04:06 Aterons_toss wrote:On November 15 2012 03:59 mcc wrote:On November 15 2012 03:39 Aterons_toss wrote:
Against this background, it seems unthinkable that anyone could embrace Nazi ideals, because it's virtually impossible to grow up in Germany and not have a rather thorough understanding of them.
This is exactly the problem, if an education makes it impossible for someone to embrace fascist-like ideals than it means that education is obviously based. Nazism was bad much like communism was bad. But extreme right/extreme left ideal in general are not bad, quite the opposite, if you read any humanist philosophy you will see that similar systems were proposed and they could have even in recent days worked quite well "theoretically". The Nazi in 20 century Germany were not evil incarnate as a "philosophy", indeed they were not worse than current American and European governs protecting the church and it's rights even tho the church is openly sexists and some of them ( most ) heavily racist as well. Nazi didn't want all the Jews, blacks, Chinese... etc dead, only some extremist got that far ( and it was due to monetary reasons mostly ), they did believe race inequality and had a right extreme doctrine which is obviously going to be far less than a success when applied in a real situation. If you teach this at school instead " EVERYTHING NAZI IS EVIL INCARNATE" than you are likely to only have a very small majority of people believe nazi was " the right thing " and that silent minority will never be able to grow much like extremist of any kind haven't been able to grow in current 1st world countries. But if you portray it as the pure evil than it will get people to question the information they are given and actually say "maybe they are the bad guys and trying to make the Nazi look bad". Twisting the truth and hammering on an issue such as Nazi only to make sure it never comes back is really silly in this day and age. Not that there are any chances it would in Germany at any rate, but you would likely see less of this if they had not done that. Or maybe if education makes it impossible for someone to embrace nazism it succeeded spectacularly. Because that is the goal of education, to form people so they are able to function in society. Nazism is (no matter which flavor) evil either as ideology or as practical implementation. Or do you think that wars, racism or genocide are not evil ? Non-evil people seeing nazism for what it really is means that they will never want to embrace it. Thus if education presents nazism as it truly is convincingly enough it will prevent people from embracing it. And that is success. What you are saying is basically the same as someone saying that if education makes it impossible for someone to embrace that 1+1=3, then it is biased. Which I hope you can clearly see as nonsense. Well your are from a country that has much stronger connections to Germany in general from what i know and you likely know more about their education system than me since i was drawing conclusion based on a few posts. If the education system isn't bias to the issue than it's likely that this will never become a problem in Germany... nor would it if it was and to be honest discussing this is kind pointless since, as was pointed out before, extremist right party existed and were quick to fall short in voters, I was only making the argument that circle jerking around how bad Nazism was wouldn't help but rather damage the image of "non Nazi". If this circlejerk happens and at what scale it's not in my knowledge so maybe I just have my facts ( or rather lack of them ) wrong and this is a non issue. Also 1+1 = 2 vs 1+1 = 3 is a whole other thing because we are trying to compare exact science to politics and ideologies. I get the point but i would say it doesn't really work the same way, you can always have an argument for any policy no matter how outrageous because it is in the end subjective and no policy whatsoever is the " RIGHT " but you can never have one for 1+1 = 3 because 1+1 = 2 is objectively the absolute truth. You can have arguments for some evil policies, but that just makes you evil. It is as easy as that. Nazi ideology is not some squabble about taxes and even not the debate about abortion. Good and evil are not as subjective as some people think they are, but that would take us to a discussion that I had in other threads often enough. As for the rest, with your more specific explanation, I get what you are trying to say, but there is no need for some knee-jerk examples of why nazis are bad in schools, there are plenty of clear examples for everyone to see. No circle-jerk is needed for any sane person to not embrace nazism after having objective, but sufficiently exhaustive, lesson on nazism. morality is massively subjective and not applicable to history. Genocide has always been a part of human behaviour. The means might have changed but as long as the outcome does not, there is barely a noteworthy difference. The only difference is that it's used by nations and partys more aggressively to discredit certain states, nations, partys or groups. I see no point discussing with someone who thinks genocide might be a "good" thing. Note that I qualified my statement with "any sane person". The question why genocides happen has caused headaches for a lot of scholars. There are a lot of answers to that question. "The antichrist did come down to the world and infected nations" was never an option, neither was "well, everyone just goes insane." So there must be a factor which leads to people accepting the concept as 'good' in certain circumstances (for romans during the imperial era it was not an evil concept). The actual findings of that historical branch are really interesting. Of course you can also just remain on your horse of morality and look down on people that actually know what they are talking about. If you are interested in the subject, science labels this topic "group related human hostility". Myriad of papers and hypothesises.
Thanks. I did some courses on that matter at university, but I prefer the historical approach over the social-psychological one. It is an interesting topic though.
|
On November 15 2012 05:36 sephiria wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 05:27 mcc wrote:On November 15 2012 05:21 sephiria wrote:On November 15 2012 05:05 mcc wrote:On November 15 2012 04:50 sephiria wrote:On November 15 2012 04:37 mcc wrote:On November 15 2012 04:06 Aterons_toss wrote:On November 15 2012 03:59 mcc wrote:On November 15 2012 03:39 Aterons_toss wrote:
Against this background, it seems unthinkable that anyone could embrace Nazi ideals, because it's virtually impossible to grow up in Germany and not have a rather thorough understanding of them.
This is exactly the problem, if an education makes it impossible for someone to embrace fascist-like ideals than it means that education is obviously based. Nazism was bad much like communism was bad. But extreme right/extreme left ideal in general are not bad, quite the opposite, if you read any humanist philosophy you will see that similar systems were proposed and they could have even in recent days worked quite well "theoretically". The Nazi in 20 century Germany were not evil incarnate as a "philosophy", indeed they were not worse than current American and European governs protecting the church and it's rights even tho the church is openly sexists and some of them ( most ) heavily racist as well. Nazi didn't want all the Jews, blacks, Chinese... etc dead, only some extremist got that far ( and it was due to monetary reasons mostly ), they did believe race inequality and had a right extreme doctrine which is obviously going to be far less than a success when applied in a real situation. If you teach this at school instead " EVERYTHING NAZI IS EVIL INCARNATE" than you are likely to only have a very small majority of people believe nazi was " the right thing " and that silent minority will never be able to grow much like extremist of any kind haven't been able to grow in current 1st world countries. But if you portray it as the pure evil than it will get people to question the information they are given and actually say "maybe they are the bad guys and trying to make the Nazi look bad". Twisting the truth and hammering on an issue such as Nazi only to make sure it never comes back is really silly in this day and age. Not that there are any chances it would in Germany at any rate, but you would likely see less of this if they had not done that. Or maybe if education makes it impossible for someone to embrace nazism it succeeded spectacularly. Because that is the goal of education, to form people so they are able to function in society. Nazism is (no matter which flavor) evil either as ideology or as practical implementation. Or do you think that wars, racism or genocide are not evil ? Non-evil people seeing nazism for what it really is means that they will never want to embrace it. Thus if education presents nazism as it truly is convincingly enough it will prevent people from embracing it. And that is success. What you are saying is basically the same as someone saying that if education makes it impossible for someone to embrace that 1+1=3, then it is biased. Which I hope you can clearly see as nonsense. Well your are from a country that has much stronger connections to Germany in general from what i know and you likely know more about their education system than me since i was drawing conclusion based on a few posts. If the education system isn't bias to the issue than it's likely that this will never become a problem in Germany... nor would it if it was and to be honest discussing this is kind pointless since, as was pointed out before, extremist right party existed and were quick to fall short in voters, I was only making the argument that circle jerking around how bad Nazism was wouldn't help but rather damage the image of "non Nazi". If this circlejerk happens and at what scale it's not in my knowledge so maybe I just have my facts ( or rather lack of them ) wrong and this is a non issue. Also 1+1 = 2 vs 1+1 = 3 is a whole other thing because we are trying to compare exact science to politics and ideologies. I get the point but i would say it doesn't really work the same way, you can always have an argument for any policy no matter how outrageous because it is in the end subjective and no policy whatsoever is the " RIGHT " but you can never have one for 1+1 = 3 because 1+1 = 2 is objectively the absolute truth. You can have arguments for some evil policies, but that just makes you evil. It is as easy as that. Nazi ideology is not some squabble about taxes and even not the debate about abortion. Good and evil are not as subjective as some people think they are, but that would take us to a discussion that I had in other threads often enough. As for the rest, with your more specific explanation, I get what you are trying to say, but there is no need for some knee-jerk examples of why nazis are bad in schools, there are plenty of clear examples for everyone to see. No circle-jerk is needed for any sane person to not embrace nazism after having objective, but sufficiently exhaustive, lesson on nazism. morality is massively subjective and not applicable to history. Genocide has always been a part of human behaviour. The means might have changed but as long as the outcome does not, there is barely a noteworthy difference. The only difference is that it's used by nations and partys more aggressively to discredit certain states, nations, partys or groups. I see no point discussing with someone who thinks genocide might be a "good" thing. Note that I qualified my statement with "any sane person". The question why genocides happen has caused headaches for a lot of scholars. There are a lot of answers to that question. "The antichrist did come down to the world and infected nations" was never an option, neither was "well, everyone just goes insane." So there must be a factor which leads to people accepting the concept as 'good' in certain circumstances (for romans during the imperial era it was not an evil concept). The actual findings of that historical branch are really interesting. Of course you can also just remain on your horse of morality and look down on people that actually know what they are talking about. Discussing why genocides happen is not the same as saying morality is all relative and genocide might be good. Since we can pretty much be sure that such a big number of people are not all complete psychopaths, big prerequisite for genocides seems to be ideological brainwashing to make the target population not-really-same-as-us/not-really-human. After that thanks to our ability to override our instincts you can do evil things even when you are not completely evil person. so there was morality in our genes. And it magically popped up after ww2? (or was "found"?). And since that point, we know what is wrong and what is right. Everyone else just doesn't know, and our ancestors never knew. And, if (or rather: when) in the future, it happens again, everyone just went insane? Well, I am starting to see the ideological brainwashing, but on another side.
Did you even read my post ? I posited hypothesis why genocides happen even though they are against most people's moral code. So no it did not pop up after second world war, if you presented nazi actions to a person from 19th century he would have the same to say about it as us today. Our ancestors 10000 years ago had the same basic moral code as we do. Do you know that most murderers actually consider murder bad, they just override their moral instinct. So why are you surprised that even though we have morality encoded into our genes we still do things that are not in accordance with it ? The only thing that changed throughout the history is that we are treating bigger and bigger chunks of people as we would treat people close to us. Morality remains the same, we just apply it to bigger groups of people as time goes on. We do less of the : "paint the others as not-really-same-as-us/not-really-human" as I said in my previous post.
|
On November 15 2012 05:45 sephiria wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 05:36 ACrow wrote:On November 15 2012 05:21 sephiria wrote:On November 15 2012 05:05 mcc wrote:On November 15 2012 04:50 sephiria wrote:On November 15 2012 04:37 mcc wrote:On November 15 2012 04:06 Aterons_toss wrote:On November 15 2012 03:59 mcc wrote:On November 15 2012 03:39 Aterons_toss wrote:
Against this background, it seems unthinkable that anyone could embrace Nazi ideals, because it's virtually impossible to grow up in Germany and not have a rather thorough understanding of them.
This is exactly the problem, if an education makes it impossible for someone to embrace fascist-like ideals than it means that education is obviously based. Nazism was bad much like communism was bad. But extreme right/extreme left ideal in general are not bad, quite the opposite, if you read any humanist philosophy you will see that similar systems were proposed and they could have even in recent days worked quite well "theoretically". The Nazi in 20 century Germany were not evil incarnate as a "philosophy", indeed they were not worse than current American and European governs protecting the church and it's rights even tho the church is openly sexists and some of them ( most ) heavily racist as well. Nazi didn't want all the Jews, blacks, Chinese... etc dead, only some extremist got that far ( and it was due to monetary reasons mostly ), they did believe race inequality and had a right extreme doctrine which is obviously going to be far less than a success when applied in a real situation. If you teach this at school instead " EVERYTHING NAZI IS EVIL INCARNATE" than you are likely to only have a very small majority of people believe nazi was " the right thing " and that silent minority will never be able to grow much like extremist of any kind haven't been able to grow in current 1st world countries. But if you portray it as the pure evil than it will get people to question the information they are given and actually say "maybe they are the bad guys and trying to make the Nazi look bad". Twisting the truth and hammering on an issue such as Nazi only to make sure it never comes back is really silly in this day and age. Not that there are any chances it would in Germany at any rate, but you would likely see less of this if they had not done that. Or maybe if education makes it impossible for someone to embrace nazism it succeeded spectacularly. Because that is the goal of education, to form people so they are able to function in society. Nazism is (no matter which flavor) evil either as ideology or as practical implementation. Or do you think that wars, racism or genocide are not evil ? Non-evil people seeing nazism for what it really is means that they will never want to embrace it. Thus if education presents nazism as it truly is convincingly enough it will prevent people from embracing it. And that is success. What you are saying is basically the same as someone saying that if education makes it impossible for someone to embrace that 1+1=3, then it is biased. Which I hope you can clearly see as nonsense. Well your are from a country that has much stronger connections to Germany in general from what i know and you likely know more about their education system than me since i was drawing conclusion based on a few posts. If the education system isn't bias to the issue than it's likely that this will never become a problem in Germany... nor would it if it was and to be honest discussing this is kind pointless since, as was pointed out before, extremist right party existed and were quick to fall short in voters, I was only making the argument that circle jerking around how bad Nazism was wouldn't help but rather damage the image of "non Nazi". If this circlejerk happens and at what scale it's not in my knowledge so maybe I just have my facts ( or rather lack of them ) wrong and this is a non issue. Also 1+1 = 2 vs 1+1 = 3 is a whole other thing because we are trying to compare exact science to politics and ideologies. I get the point but i would say it doesn't really work the same way, you can always have an argument for any policy no matter how outrageous because it is in the end subjective and no policy whatsoever is the " RIGHT " but you can never have one for 1+1 = 3 because 1+1 = 2 is objectively the absolute truth. You can have arguments for some evil policies, but that just makes you evil. It is as easy as that. Nazi ideology is not some squabble about taxes and even not the debate about abortion. Good and evil are not as subjective as some people think they are, but that would take us to a discussion that I had in other threads often enough. As for the rest, with your more specific explanation, I get what you are trying to say, but there is no need for some knee-jerk examples of why nazis are bad in schools, there are plenty of clear examples for everyone to see. No circle-jerk is needed for any sane person to not embrace nazism after having objective, but sufficiently exhaustive, lesson on nazism. morality is massively subjective and not applicable to history. Genocide has always been a part of human behaviour. The means might have changed but as long as the outcome does not, there is barely a noteworthy difference. The only difference is that it's used by nations and partys more aggressively to discredit certain states, nations, partys or groups. I see no point discussing with someone who thinks genocide might be a "good" thing. Note that I qualified my statement with "any sane person". The question why genocides happen has caused headaches for a lot of scholars. There are a lot of answers to that question. "The antichrist did come down to the world and infected nations" was never an option, neither was "well, everyone just goes insane." So there must be a factor which leads to people accepting the concept as 'good' in certain circumstances (for romans during the imperial era it was not an evil concept). The actual findings of that historical branch are really interesting. Of course you can also just remain on your horse of morality and look down on people that actually know what they are talking about. You don't need to be a scholar to see that genocide is bad. While morality is subjective, anyone that argues genocides might be morally acceptable is a person that I'd call an idiot and morally despiccable and not worth to further discuss with. That's my own, personal and totally subjective standpoint. You seem to be confusing scientific (history is classified as a science in the german language@non-germans) approach with the standpoint of me personally. I never said that I like genocide or that I think it is or even can be good, but THIS opinion (and yours) is based on my own perception of what is morally acceptable. For most of the time, the human race didnt give a flying fuck about morality when it came to people they did not see as part of their own society. I just tried point out that if you look at certain points in history you can NOT just say everyone is evil. That is highly unscientific and you would fail every course in history with that attitude.
How would I fail a history course when I argue my own interpretation of morality? That'd hardly be the topic of the course. And if you want to discuss morality from the perspecitve of the time period they were in, then I'd make the argument that there were contemporaries of the holocaust that saw the actions of the Nazis very much as morally 'evil' as well, just watch the black&white video recordings of the GI's that discovered the KZs and the multitude of testimonies of contemporaries that were horrified by the industrialized way that human beings were gased.
By pretty much any definition of moral that I know of, the actions of the Nazis were morally corrupt, from today's perspective, as well from the perspective of a person living at that time.
I don't deny that there were a plentitude of genocides before and sadly there will probably be more to come, but saying humanity in general doesn't care about this, is something I don't want to accept and is also something I doubt has been scientifically proven...
We are being very off-topic here, but I got the (maybe wrong, if so then I apologize) impression that you are somehow defending adhering to Nazi ideology, which is something that really baffles me.
|
On November 15 2012 05:58 Xiron wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 05:36 ACrow wrote:
You don't need to be a scholar to see that genocide is bad. While morality is subjective, anyone that argues genocides might be morally acceptable is a person that I'd call an idiot and morally despiccable and not worth to further discuss with. That's my own, personal and totally subjective standpoint. And ignorant, narrow-minded and all in all uneducated. But whatever..
Then please enlighten me why you would think a genocide might be morally acceptable. I'm all ears.
|
On November 13 2012 00:36 BluePanther wrote:
For all the comments about how America is too far right politically, Europe always has this problem and we never really do.
You wish that we could claim to never have problems with hate crimes, xenophobia, or political extremists convincing others of their radical views...
|
|
|
On November 15 2012 06:26 Xiron wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 06:13 ACrow wrote:On November 15 2012 05:58 Xiron wrote:On November 15 2012 05:36 ACrow wrote:
You don't need to be a scholar to see that genocide is bad. While morality is subjective, anyone that argues genocides might be morally acceptable is a person that I'd call an idiot and morally despiccable and not worth to further discuss with. That's my own, personal and totally subjective standpoint. And ignorant, narrow-minded and all in all uneducated. But whatever.. Then please enlighten me why you would think a genocide might be morally acceptable. I'm all ears. Because genocide follows the same rule, which all of nature follows: The strongest survive. Let's imagine: Your country is poor, in a huge famine. Your little brother already starved, you are skinny as a stick. But then there are those people, in a neighboring country, who are wealthy, but they won't give you anything, just because. All the people in your country, filled with hunger and anger begin to hate those other people, because they don't care about you. Your government, desperate, invades that other country. This country obviously fights back, a war ensues. Your country wins the war, but not after killing basically all of the other country's population. You get to eat again, get to sleep again, without having the fear to wake up next to your dead sister. And you WILL think it was acceptable to kill those other people you don't know anything about, because it secured your own survival. You WILL think this genocide was justified. That's nature.
Winning a war and committing genocide are not even remotely the same thing. In a historic sense, genocide is almost always reserved to describe the totally lopsided killing of a population by another, not some precipitation of a zero-sum war's consequences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
