|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
On June 05 2023 07:05 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2023 06:57 Magic Powers wrote:On June 05 2023 06:44 KwarK wrote:On June 05 2023 06:31 Magic Powers wrote:On June 05 2023 06:26 KwarK wrote:On June 05 2023 06:22 Magic Powers wrote:
I'd like to remind people that Ardias is still in Russia. I (and presumably others as well) urged him to leave long ago. Would you argue that he's ok with the prospect of killing Ukrainians because he prefers taking the risk of getting drafted than leaving his family? Or would you somehow assume that he has an easy out if he gets drafted? Because people like KwarK are making this all sound really easy and obvious. I want to know how easy and obvious this all really is in reality. Please tell me how you would act in Ardias' shoes so everyone can see how morally superior you are to him. Because that's what you're thinking, right? That you're above Ardias, right? That you're better than him? I'm certainly better than you, but you probably still put on your grandfather's uniform from time to time. Germans and "not having any choice" is an iconic combo. Ardias isn't fighting and I can't speak for what he would do if he was asked to participate in a genocidal war. Let's go back to a simple example though. Two men in two different rooms are both ordered at gunpoint to kill a child. The first person, we'll call him Magic Powers, chooses kills the child to save his sorry worthless skin. The second person, we'll call him KwarK, chooses death and is killed. Which of them had a choice? There we have it. You unironically telling me that you're "certainly better than me" just screams in bold letters that, yes indeed, you're in fact better than me. I'm proud of you, KwarK, for being so incredibly introspective, while essentially calling every single Russian soldier a murderer. When the world is so black and white as it is to you, it's certainly very easy feeling superior to others. You keep bringing up child murder for some absurd reason. Do you know how many Russian soldiers have killed a child in this war? Tell us the number. Tell us what fraction of the Russian soldiers has killed a child. I'm better than you because you are spending your Sunday explaining to us your ethical framework that justifies active participation in genocide. That's a good one, I'll keep it in mind for when we meet and I'll ask you to repeat your words straight to my face without feeling the slightest embarrassment over it. According to you, every Russian soldier is an active participant in genocide. I'll keep that in mind. If they are in Ukraine? A passive participant at best yes. Your there occupying the country the country so others can do the genocide. Without all those soldiers who "are just doing their job and didn't have a choice" there would be no Russian army left in Ukraine. I'm not saying they should all be executed for war crimes. I get it if they say "What else could I do" but I would sure hope they feel shame for what they, passively, allowed and no I don't think they get to complain about being judged by public opinion for their contribution.
"without all those soldiers" implies collective action. That's what would be required for soldiers to end the suffering in Ukraine, a collective strike. Such action strictly isn't possible, because they can't organize in this way. It's not possible, and it demonstrates a very naive understanding of war to even suggest it could work.
|
United States43646 Posts
On June 05 2023 07:03 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2023 07:01 KwarK wrote:On June 05 2023 07:01 Magic Powers wrote:The following is a list of post-WW2 trials for war crimes committed by Axis personnel. Does anyone notice the significant number of people not found guilty? How come, if they were all active participants in genocide? Did the courts not have a moral backbone or was there perhaps a different reason? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Axis_personnel_indicted_for_war_crimes The courts didn't have a moral backbone. It is interesting though that your argument has now become "if you're judging the Russian soldiers for genocide then why not also the Wehrmacht who also did it". Full mask off phase. You're confirming that you agree that they're the same and think both deserve the same absolution for their sins. "mask off"? Are you absolutely crazy? Is this kind of behavior from moderators allowed?
"Look, surely nobody would condemn the Wehrmacht for their sins in Eastern Europe. After all most of the Wehrmacht escaped punishment at Nuremberg so surely nobody would think they did anything wrong. All I'm saying is that the Russian soldiers are no worse than the Wehrmacht and so we should give them the same benefit of the doubt."
When you defend the Russian soldiers by holding them up against the noble example of the Wehrmacht in WW2 then yeah, you've gone full mask off.
|
On June 05 2023 07:08 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2023 07:03 Magic Powers wrote:On June 05 2023 07:01 KwarK wrote:On June 05 2023 07:01 Magic Powers wrote:The following is a list of post-WW2 trials for war crimes committed by Axis personnel. Does anyone notice the significant number of people not found guilty? How come, if they were all active participants in genocide? Did the courts not have a moral backbone or was there perhaps a different reason? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Axis_personnel_indicted_for_war_crimes The courts didn't have a moral backbone. It is interesting though that your argument has now become "if you're judging the Russian soldiers for genocide then why not also the Wehrmacht who also did it". Full mask off phase. You're confirming that you agree that they're the same and think both deserve the same absolution for their sins. "mask off"? Are you absolutely crazy? Is this kind of behavior from moderators allowed? "Look, surely nobody would condemn the Wehrmacht for their sins in Eastern Europe. After all most of the Wehrmacht escaped punishment at Nuremberg so surely nobody would think they did anything wrong. All I'm saying is that the Russian soldiers are no worse than the Wehrmacht and so we should give them the same benefit of the doubt." When you defend the Russian soldiers by holding them up against the noble example of the Wehrmacht in WW2 then yeah, you've gone full mask off.
No, it means you're full steam ahead on the crazy train. Your argument has derailed.
|
United States43646 Posts
On June 05 2023 07:10 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2023 07:08 KwarK wrote:On June 05 2023 07:03 Magic Powers wrote:On June 05 2023 07:01 KwarK wrote:On June 05 2023 07:01 Magic Powers wrote:The following is a list of post-WW2 trials for war crimes committed by Axis personnel. Does anyone notice the significant number of people not found guilty? How come, if they were all active participants in genocide? Did the courts not have a moral backbone or was there perhaps a different reason? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Axis_personnel_indicted_for_war_crimes The courts didn't have a moral backbone. It is interesting though that your argument has now become "if you're judging the Russian soldiers for genocide then why not also the Wehrmacht who also did it". Full mask off phase. You're confirming that you agree that they're the same and think both deserve the same absolution for their sins. "mask off"? Are you absolutely crazy? Is this kind of behavior from moderators allowed? "Look, surely nobody would condemn the Wehrmacht for their sins in Eastern Europe. After all most of the Wehrmacht escaped punishment at Nuremberg so surely nobody would think they did anything wrong. All I'm saying is that the Russian soldiers are no worse than the Wehrmacht and so we should give them the same benefit of the doubt." When you defend the Russian soldiers by holding them up against the noble example of the Wehrmacht in WW2 then yeah, you've gone full mask off. No, it means you're full steam ahead on the crazy train. Your argument has derailed.
Your argument literally went to holding up the fucking Wehrmacht as an example of people who weren't war criminals. You hinged it on that. You argued that because the Wehrmacht escaped punishment the Russian soldiers couldn't be war criminals.
Incidentally it's this kind of thing that lets strangers on the internet correctly guess your family link to the Nazis.
|
On June 05 2023 07:14 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2023 07:10 Magic Powers wrote:On June 05 2023 07:08 KwarK wrote:On June 05 2023 07:03 Magic Powers wrote:On June 05 2023 07:01 KwarK wrote:On June 05 2023 07:01 Magic Powers wrote:The following is a list of post-WW2 trials for war crimes committed by Axis personnel. Does anyone notice the significant number of people not found guilty? How come, if they were all active participants in genocide? Did the courts not have a moral backbone or was there perhaps a different reason? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Axis_personnel_indicted_for_war_crimes The courts didn't have a moral backbone. It is interesting though that your argument has now become "if you're judging the Russian soldiers for genocide then why not also the Wehrmacht who also did it". Full mask off phase. You're confirming that you agree that they're the same and think both deserve the same absolution for their sins. "mask off"? Are you absolutely crazy? Is this kind of behavior from moderators allowed? "Look, surely nobody would condemn the Wehrmacht for their sins in Eastern Europe. After all most of the Wehrmacht escaped punishment at Nuremberg so surely nobody would think they did anything wrong. All I'm saying is that the Russian soldiers are no worse than the Wehrmacht and so we should give them the same benefit of the doubt." When you defend the Russian soldiers by holding them up against the noble example of the Wehrmacht in WW2 then yeah, you've gone full mask off. No, it means you're full steam ahead on the crazy train. Your argument has derailed. Your argument literally went to holding up the fucking Wehrmacht as an example of people who weren't war criminals. You hinged it on that. You argued that because the Wehrmacht escaped punishment the Russian soldiers couldn't be war criminals. Incidentally it's this kind of thing that lets strangers on the internet correctly guess your family link to the Nazis.
You're absolutely nuts to accuse me out of all people of being a Nazi sympathizer. You're nuts. Take a shower.
|
United States43646 Posts
On June 05 2023 07:01 Magic Powers wrote:The following is a list of post-WW2 trials for war crimes committed by Axis personnel. Does anyone notice the significant number of people not found guilty? How come, if they were all active participants in genocide? Did the courts not have a moral backbone or was there perhaps a different reason? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Axis_personnel_indicted_for_war_crimes
The words of a man explaining that the Wehrmacht weren't guilty of war crimes.
|
On June 05 2023 07:19 KwarK wrote:The words of a man explaining that the Wehrmacht weren't guilty of war crimes.
Unlike you I read a number of the cases. They were in fact innocent, and not - as you ignorantly suggest - guilty but somehow "escaped justice". Maybe a handful of them escaped justice, but the majority of those who were found innocent were in fact innocent.
That you think the courts were somehow acting favorably for the Nazis is absolutely absurd. They were stacked against them, completely one-sided. And yet, somehow against all odds, many of them were found innocent.
A clear majority though was found guilty, also entirely correctly. They committed many crimes and faced various types of punishments.
Go read the cases, you're currently far too uneducated to be let loose in this thread. Your wild accusations are proof of it, and in my opinion you should not have any moderator powers considering your unacceptable actions towards forum users.
|
United States43646 Posts
On June 05 2023 07:26 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2023 07:19 KwarK wrote:On June 05 2023 07:01 Magic Powers wrote:The following is a list of post-WW2 trials for war crimes committed by Axis personnel. Does anyone notice the significant number of people not found guilty? How come, if they were all active participants in genocide? Did the courts not have a moral backbone or was there perhaps a different reason? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Axis_personnel_indicted_for_war_crimes The words of a man explaining that the Wehrmacht weren't guilty of war crimes. They were in fact innocent
and there we have it
|
I'm going to bed. Far too late, but better late than never. The only thing I learned today is that you're in favor of mock trials.
|
United States43646 Posts
On June 05 2023 07:43 Magic Powers wrote:
I'm going to bed. Far too late, but better late than never. The only thing I learned today is that you're in favor of mock trials.
The crimes of the Wehrmacht were neither mock nor limited to a small number of individuals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_clean_Wehrmacht
|
He didn't argue that, he said "A clear majority though was found guilty, also entirely correctly". You're going too far trying to get under his skin and cause an implosion a la xDaunt, but you don't have the right person for that.
|
|
|
United States43646 Posts
On June 05 2023 07:57 Dan HH wrote:He didn't argue that, he said "A clear majority though was found guilty, also entirely correctly". You're going too far trying to get under his skin and cause an implosion a la xDaunt, but you don't have the right person for that.
Nah, he argued that the lack of convictions of the Wehrmacht meant that their hands were largely clean and therefore the Russian army, which he argued was no less blameless than the Wehrmacht, were also in the clear.
|
|
|
United States43646 Posts
On June 05 2023 08:15 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2023 08:07 KwarK wrote:On June 05 2023 07:57 Dan HH wrote:On June 05 2023 07:48 KwarK wrote:On June 05 2023 07:43 Magic Powers wrote:
I'm going to bed. Far too late, but better late than never. The only thing I learned today is that you're in favor of mock trials. The crimes of the Wehrmacht were neither mock nor limited to a small number of individuals. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_clean_Wehrmacht He didn't argue that, he said "A clear majority though was found guilty, also entirely correctly". You're going too far trying to get under his skin and cause an implosion a la xDaunt, but you don't have the right person for that. Nah, he argued that the lack of convictions of the Wehrmacht meant that their hands were largely clean and therefore the Russian army, which he argued was no less blameless than the Wehrmacht, were also in the clear. If I change your example to you’re in a room with a child your choice is to kill your child or have them live stream a video of your child, wife and mother raped and murdered. You get to live either way. Do you kill the child? Either way your choice leads to children dying. Are you now a child murderer?
If choice A is that a child is killed and choice B is that a child is killed then I don't see where the choice is. That's not the scenario under discussion though.
|
|
|
United States43646 Posts
On June 05 2023 08:25 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2023 08:22 KwarK wrote:On June 05 2023 08:15 JimmiC wrote:On June 05 2023 08:07 KwarK wrote:On June 05 2023 07:57 Dan HH wrote:On June 05 2023 07:48 KwarK wrote:On June 05 2023 07:43 Magic Powers wrote:
I'm going to bed. Far too late, but better late than never. The only thing I learned today is that you're in favor of mock trials. The crimes of the Wehrmacht were neither mock nor limited to a small number of individuals. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_clean_Wehrmacht He didn't argue that, he said "A clear majority though was found guilty, also entirely correctly". You're going too far trying to get under his skin and cause an implosion a la xDaunt, but you don't have the right person for that. Nah, he argued that the lack of convictions of the Wehrmacht meant that their hands were largely clean and therefore the Russian army, which he argued was no less blameless than the Wehrmacht, were also in the clear. If I change your example to you’re in a room with a child your choice is to kill your child or have them live stream a video of your child, wife and mother raped and murdered. You get to live either way. Do you kill the child? Either way your choice leads to children dying. Are you now a child murderer? If choice A is that a child is killed and choice B is that a child is killed then I don't see where the choice is. That's not the scenario under discussion though. No if you don’t kill the child in A that child lives, it is yours that dies. And yes people families do get consequences if they do not participate. Maybe not the ones I’ve stated but it’s not like yours was exactly realistic either.
It's a tough one because presumably they can make me choose to kill the other child and then go "lol, now do it again or we kill your kid" and so forth and so forth. You've no guarantee that you're not choosing between a hundred children and yours. But equally they'd probably just kill all the kids anyway in that situation.
If it's guaranteed that it's just my kid or a stranger's then I'm choosing the stranger's kid to die. I'll probably end up killing myself at some point over the guilt, even though it's not my fault it's theirs, but whatever, I make the choice.
But my point is, and always has been, that even in that absurdly coercive situation the person is still capable of exercising a choice. They're not morally responsible for either death, they didn't create the scenario, but they're capable of making a choice. The idea that threats someone makes people automatons is absurd, you can assess the threat and the action being asked of you and still make a choice.
That's why the argument by our Austrian Wehrmacht enthusiast was so absurd. His key example of how men don't have a choice was a group of men being punished for choosing to run away rather than fight, an example of how they clearly did have a choice. His thesis that the threat of violence makes all individuals literally incapable of making a choice is even more absurd. If we were to accept his premise then the threat of a slap would be sufficient to compel anyone to do anything, after all the amount of violence and the task at hand aren't relevant. If the threat of a beating is enough to remove all choice from all individuals then the threat of a slap, or of being called mean names, must also be. It must not be possible under his premise for two different individuals to make different choices after being subjected to the same amount of coercive threats because those threats render the very idea of the individuals making choices impossible.
It was an extremely silly assertion being made. Threats of violence may reduce the moral responsibility for the choice made but it does not mean that no choice has been made.
|
|
|
I believe out of anything the agreement of WW2 is that "I was just following orders" was not an excuse for crimes committed.
I think Generation Kill has a really good viewpoint of war crimes. Its not bad people committing war crimes or good people committing war crimes but that by participating in the war you are responsible for war crimes. You cannot keep your hands clean no matter how hard you try. And thats a force that doesn't have traveling torture chambers and filling mass graves everywhere they go.
the whole moral and legal system breaks down if you do not hold responsibility for the actions you take. The only way any of this works is that if people commit crimes they are responsible for the crime they commit. There are untold things that have affected you and influenced you on the line of being born to targeting a hospital with a cruise missile but at the end of the day attaching a crying baby to they're dead mother so you can bobbytrap the enemy is a bad thing and makes you a bad person.
|
United States43646 Posts
On June 05 2023 10:45 JimmiC wrote:
I think you are just taking his use of no choice to literal. Or both being obtuse about how much grey there is in “choice”, even the information one has clearly changes the moral implications.
It is skipping over the hard parts, which is sorting the grey and bad/less bad choices.
Nah. He was pretty clear about his point and he meant it entirely literally. Any threat of any amount of violence absolves the threatened party of any crime because any threatened party is incapable of moral decision making.
If grey areas are introduced then that would make some of them war criminals and we can’t have that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
