| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
ShaperofDreams
Canada2492 Posts
He just chose the unlucky straw i guess, it is impossible to let him off the hook in this situation. Also, i have noticed how much naivete many people from well-off countries have about this sort of thing. *edit - also, what with every single political or world war thread being turned into a flamefest? that kind of shit is what starts wars. | ||
|
HamerD
United Kingdom1922 Posts
On May 13 2009 07:52 Carnac wrote: So I'm an idiot because I can differentiate between two notions? You know that your user information reads 4 bans that can be very well be summarized as having been issued for you acting like an idiot, right? I rest my case. I was responding tit-for-tat to you saying that I 'don't understand anything'. There is no productive use of punishment save to a) prevent the person from reoffending b) prevent others from doing the same thing or c) to get revenge. I can't believe you rest your case on a smarmy ad hominem jibe. My previous bannings have nothing to do with whether I am right or wrong in this situation, you should know that. Twice so far you have had nothing more that shit-slinging to offer, do you actually have a substantial rebuke to my statement that justice = revenge or are you going to continue heaving manure? | ||
|
Railxp
Hong Kong1313 Posts
On May 13 2009 07:38 HamerD wrote: You have to be kidding me. My great grandfather shot over 50 germans in the first world war, he murdered them, a lot of them he shot in the back whilst they were running (he was a sniper), he was given a medal for it. Should he be punished for it? With the utmost respect and sensitivity regarding this issue, and I by no means want to personalize it, but if you ask that question, it is hard not to do so. Realize also that you are emotionally involved. In accordance with my previous post, Do i think what he did was wrong? Absolutely. Do I think he should be locked up? Nope. But I do sincerely hope that once in a while he thinks about the families that have been undone by his bullets, and that he feels guilty for it (er stick this under past tense if he already passed on). The rhetoric that troops are good but war is bad is bullshit. Without troops there can be no war. The purpose of an army is to kill, if you join it, you full well know and expect to do so. Just because you put on a uniform and get medals for it doesn't make killing right. Its wrong for the Nazis and its wrong for everyone else. I've read your posts and you are definitely an intelligent individual, but in this instance, bringing up your great granddad doesn't really justify anything. | ||
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
And the "no choice" shit got covered AT LENGTH. READ THE FUCKING THREAD | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
| ||
|
ghermination
United States2851 Posts
| ||
|
Person514cs
1004 Posts
| ||
|
HamerD
United Kingdom1922 Posts
On May 13 2009 08:46 Railxp wrote: With the utmost respect and sensitivity regarding this issue, and I by no means want to personalize it, but if you ask that question, it is hard not to do so. Realize also that you are emotionally involved. In accordance with my previous post, Do i think what he did was wrong? Absolutely. Do I think he should be locked up? Nope. But I do sincerely hope that once in a while he thinks about the families that have been undone by his bullets, and that he feels guilty for it (er stick this under past tense if he already passed on). The rhetoric that troops are good but war is bad is bullshit. Without troops there can be no war. The purpose of an army is to kill, if you join it, you full well know and expect to do so. Just because you put on a uniform and get medals for it doesn't make killing right. Its wrong for the Nazis and its wrong for everyone else. But I think the way you think about my great grandfather is the way I think about this guy. I very much doubt the guy hasn't experienced moral guilt. Very much. Great grandfather Hamer (btw he has passed away) wrote back about one specific incident in the war when he and his company was enfiladed by two companies of Germans. Because he was also a grenade thrower (he had a good arm), he was at the very front trench, and he and his fellow soldiers were surrounded easily. They managed to hold the Germans off, enough time for some men from the other trenches to advance in line and push them back. At which point, he wrote of shooting as many as he could in the back whilst they ran. But IMAGINE if he had put something in his diary like 'I was so happy I could finally kill those scummy Gerries. I hate them, and I love to kill them, especially make them bleed and cry out for their mothers'. Just to clarify he didn't put anything like that. But imagine if he had. I can't see how, no matter how vitriolic his intentions or murderousness, he would EVER go to jail for that. Even if he killed 1000 Germans...or 29,000. Killing and torturing in war time, when it is allowed by upper echelons, is just plainly very different from in peace time. Also, I think Milgram really can be taken farther. It shows that quite a few people have sadistic streaks in them. Really evil, sadistic fucking streaks. They do the milgram test quite a lot on TV in England, and every time they repeat it, I always see a few people smiling and enjoying the power rush of making someone cry out in pain. I am convinced these people, if they were told by a scientist, commanding officer or governor; would be PERFECTLY happy allowing their most revolting sadistic tendencies come to light. In the name of advancement of science, of their group. With it being so arbitrary, who is sadistic and who is not; I don't see how we can really wish to pick and choose those sadists who were allowed to do what they did and those who weren't. The only reason this man should go to jail is if the families of his victims absolutely demand it. He did something that left their lives damaged. They now have the right, in my opinion, to have him jailed. I, however, don't think anyone who is not involved deserves that right, on moral grounds. There is nothing wrong with justice, if the wronged party wants it. But, imo, it should only be the course IF the do. I don't believe we have any moral obligation to punish him. | ||
|
HamerD
United Kingdom1922 Posts
On May 13 2009 08:52 HeadBangaa wrote: HamerD, justice is independent of revenge and deterrent. This isn't an ethics course. I don't think justice is anything to do with deterrent and I didn't say it was. As far as I can see, justice is wanting to punish someone for doing something. That is where I see the unarguable convergence of definition with 'revenge'. Think about when we ask for 'justice', it is when we are emotionally uninvolved. If you were truly emotionally detached from a situation, you would find it impossible to 'want' an offending party to pay for what they did. You could see how the offended party would want it, you could totally appreciate that, but you couldn't also desire it. When it comes down to it, justice is as much about satisfying ourselves as it is the victim- and that's revenge. And your point about this not being an ethics course...well I don't accept that sentiment. Either we can be grown up about a topic and try to use our intellectual scruples, or we can thrown shit around all day. I'm not arguing the way I would in a paper, nor am I arguing the way I would in a bar. The internet, for me, is a good middle ground between pub talk and high level discourse. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
yes, assuming the man did what the worst account of him said he did, he does 'deserve' at least a trial, but still this procedure of justice, if you view it as such, is not without conflict. understanding both the nature of his evil and the nature of our desire to punish him, you will find that the proper picture of the situation is that of a game of puppetry, without a puppetmaster. to put it another way, that we feel the need to punish the man is a spontaneous passion that is akin to a human function. the exercise of which is natural, but the existence of which is not rational. we also have a function for racism or group warfare, all of which are natural passions, but surely that we feel the compulsion to do them is not justification. this is not to defend the man or justify his actions. to the contrary, having the proper view of how his social situation enabled that kind of evil makes us even more vigilant against the possibility of such evil. we will be, preferably, more critical of convention and our surroundings when we are in the minority. though seeing the guy punished is a bit uncomfortable, i don't really care too much about it except to register the protest, that i don't think any perfectly satisfactory solution exists. what do i propose? assuming the legal structure is flexible, a trial is certainly needed. then lock him up for life in a humane prison. | ||
|
Brett
Australia3820 Posts
On May 13 2009 08:37 HamerD wrote: I was responding tit-for-tat to you saying that I 'don't understand anything'. There is no productive use of punishment save to a) prevent the person from reoffending b) prevent others from doing the same thing or c) to get revenge. On May 13 2009 08:52 HeadBangaa wrote: HamerD, justice is independent of revenge and deterrent. This isn't an ethics course. Neither of you appear to have a solid grasp of sentencing principles, so I suggest you leave those issues aside. In very brief terms, sentencing in and of itself is the process of doing justice. You'll find that the commonly accepted sentencing principles are: Deterence (Specific and General), Retribution, Denunciation, Community protection and rehabilitation. Of course it is a balancing act, and certainly would be if this man is found guilty. As Hart said: "any morally tolerable account of [the institution of criminal punishment] must exhibit it as a compromise between distinct and partly conflicting principles" So assuming the man is found guilty, and his Counsel and those serving on the bench are competent, all of the factors brought up in this thread, whether they be against him (eg. scale of the crimes and level of pain, torture, degradation caused to victims, etc) or for him (his age, the regime in place, social 'atmosphere', lack of other criminal behaviour, etc), would be considered in handing down any punishment to him. | ||
|
HamerD
United Kingdom1922 Posts
On May 13 2009 11:43 Brett wrote: Neither of you appear to have a solid grasp of sentencing principles, so I suggest you leave those issues aside. In very brief terms, sentencing in and of itself is the process of doing justice. You'll find that the commonly accepted sentencing principles are: Deterence (Specific and General), Retribution, Denunciation, Community protection and rehabilitation. Thanks for the info but I'm pretty sure that you just said what I said there. | ||
|
Brett
Australia3820 Posts
| ||
|
Railxp
Hong Kong1313 Posts
On May 13 2009 09:16 HamerD wrote: But I think the way you think about my great grandfather is the way I think about this guy. I very much doubt the guy hasn't experienced moral guilt. Very much. <snip> I can't see how, no matter how vitriolic his intentions or murderousness, he would EVER go to jail for that. Even if he killed 1000 Germans...or 29,000. Killing and torturing in war time, when it is allowed by upper echelons, is just plainly very different from in peace time. Also, I think Milgram really can be taken farther. It shows that quite a few people have sadistic streaks in them. Really evil, sadistic fucking streaks. They do the milgram test quite a lot on TV in England, and every time they repeat it, I always see a few people smiling and enjoying the power rush of making someone cry out in pain. I am convinced these people, if they were told by a scientist, commanding officer or governor; would be PERFECTLY happy allowing their most revolting sadistic tendencies come to light. In the name of advancement of science, of their group. <snip> Yes you are right, in general I am unfairly lumping Great Grandaddy Hammer with this nazi individual, in fact, i'm also lumping all soldiers into that category also. Mr. Nazi could have had the most satanic of all intentions, and USA soldiers could be "defending the homeland" and all, but at the end of the day behavior speaks louder than intentions, and what they do is exactly what murderers do, only on a massive "authorized" scale. Killing and torturing in war time, when it is allowed by upper echelons, is just plainly very different from in peace time. What is so different about killing during war and killing during peace? The fact that everyone else around you is doing it? Isn't this the exact situation that Mr. Nazi was under? Intentions don't matter in the big picture. Sadists could join the US army and rejoice in Iraqi blood every day, and yet when they come back they get a medal and the compassionate coward who felt sorry for the children do not. And I think you are missing the key point of Zimbardo + Milgram's experiment. The experiments don't show that quite a few people have sadistic streaks, it shows that WE ALL have sadistic streaks. You. Me. Every. single. person. on TL and elsewhere, given the right circumstances, is capable of ultimate evil. Power corrupts. The only way to break out of those situations is to take responsibility. Realize that you are responsible for the suffering inflicted, and not your commander or your lab coat psychologist. Because once you claim the responsibility, suddenly it is no longer okay to cause suffering and death. Suddenly things stop. Only then can war end. Edit:To snip a quote regarding the Nuremberg trials Years later, reporting on the trial of Adolf Eichmann, Hannah Arendt wrote of "the banality of evil." Like Eichmann, most Nuremberg defendants never aspired to be villains. Rather, they either overidentified with an ideological cause or suffered from a lack of imagination: they couldn't fully appreciate the human consequences of their career-motivated decisions The last two lines could entirly be applied to soldiers. And that is why this man needs to be held responsible for his actions, but so should all other soldiers. But again, by held responsible i do not mean thrown in jail. There needs to be another way. slightly offtopic: IMO this whole news article looks like they are just picking on a defenseless old man to use as a scapegoat. I mean, surely he is not the only one doing his horrible death camp job. Surely there are many others who go unprosecuted, and yet they just so happen to pick a near death old man? My crackpot ungrounded conspiracy theory antennas are going wild. | ||
zatic
Zurich15313 Posts
Again, everyone, please: - Demjanjuk was not a soldier - What he did were not war crimes - The holocaust and the death camps were NOT war crimes The comparisons to any act of war just do not apply. The death camps were murder. Call them crimes against humanity if you want but they were not war crimes. If John Doe of Utah shoots his neighbor then this is murder, not a war crime, even though the US is currently at war. How is this concept so hard to understand? | ||
|
Brett
Australia3820 Posts
On May 13 2009 12:45 zatic wrote: HamerD why even bring up the iccup stats of you granddad? Unless he was a torturer at a concentration camp in Burma (yeah, you had those too) there no point in bringing that up. Again, everyone, please: - Demjanjuk was not a soldier - What he did were not war crimes - The holocaust and the death camps were NOT war crimes The comparisons to any act of war just do not apply. The death camps were murder. Call them crimes against humanity if you want but they were not war crimes. If John Doe of Utah shoots his neighbor then this is murder, not a war crime, even though the US is currently at war. How is this concept so hard to understand? I see the point you're trying to make but it's not as straight forward as you'd make it out  . If John Doe of Utah works for a specific government body and kills his neighbour under direction from political leaders, under a national policy which is the driving force of the USA's war effort... then you'd have a more valid comparison... In any event, under the Nuremberg principles, this Demjanjuk's actions are arguably war crimes. Look at principle 6. If any of his 29k victims were not Germans, I'd argue that it's made out... Anyway, the simple answer is that people are probably talking about war crimes and/or crimes against humanity because it was on that basis that he was first tried and found guilty for same in 1988. Edit: Btw, yes I do understand that that is not what he is now being tried for! | ||
|
Railxp
Hong Kong1313 Posts
| ||
|
Louder
United States2276 Posts
On May 12 2009 10:30 {88}iNcontroL wrote: Yes yes yessssssss WE GET IT people follow orders.. that doesn't mean you fucking spare them when those orders are illegal or fucking grotesque. That means you punish the people who issued the orders most severely, than punish the people who executed the orders to a lesser degree. I'm sorry but it has never/will never be ok to justify atrocious actions with "he ordered me to do it." You are still accountable. Except that a military is built on the notion that when "he orders me to do it", I do it without question and do it to the best of my ability. That's how it works. Are you willing to prosecute every American soldier who served in Iraq for following orders to participate in an illegal war?  | ||
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
Did every american soldier aid in genocide? No. Is this a special situation? Obviously. War isn't pretty. What the Nazis did was something special. | ||
|
HamerD
United Kingdom1922 Posts
On May 13 2009 12:31 Railxp wrote: Yes you are right, in general I am unfairly lumping Great Grandaddy Hammer with this nazi individual, in fact, i'm also lumping all soldiers into that category also. Mr. Nazi could have had the most satanic of all intentions, and USA soldiers could be "defending the homeland" and all, but at the end of the day behavior speaks louder than intentions, and what they do is exactly what murderers do, only on a massive "authorized" scale. Well firstly I wasn't saying that was unfair. And your point about behaviour speaking louder than intentions...that just doesn't fly with me! Euthenasia is different from revenge killing, is different from passion killing, is different from honour killing etcetc. Dead person at the end of each case, but plainly different equations regarding future danger for society/ lack or presence of humanity. What is so different about killing during war and killing during peace? The fact that everyone else around you is doing it? Isn't this the exact situation that Mr. Nazi was under? Intentions don't matter in the big picture. Sadists could join the US army and rejoice in Iraqi blood every day, and yet when they come back they get a medal and the compassionate coward who felt sorry for the children do not. There isn't any moral difference, that's the point. There isn't anything 'right' about killing in war. Even in the old 'kill one person or 1000 people die' scenario, both killing and not killing are 'wrong' morally. My point is that you kill in war because you are allowed to, according to the rules. Morality has nothing to do with it. And if you weren't allowed to, you wouldn't do it. To my mind, that sums up a sane, perfectly rational individual who can function in society. This guy is a vicious mass murderer and torturer when he is allowed to be. Is he one when he is not? No. The same (as we've seen with Milgram) can be said of most people. He poses 0 danger to society. Therefore the ONLY reason you could want to have him jailed is revenge. I believe that taking revenge on someone when they haven't wronged you is fundamentally flawed. Hence, the conclusion I previously reached. And I think you are missing the key point of Zimbardo + Milgram's experiment. The experiments don't show that quite a few people have sadistic streaks, it shows that WE ALL have sadistic streaks. You. Me. Every. single. person. on TL and elsewhere, given the right circumstances, is capable of ultimate evil. Power corrupts. The only way to break out of those situations is to take responsibility. Realize that you are responsible for the suffering inflicted, and not your commander or your lab coat psychologist. Because once you claim the responsibility, suddenly it is no longer okay to cause suffering and death. Suddenly things stop. I think the Stanford prison experiment illustrates how frustration can dehumanize us, and power can corrupt us, yes. I think Milgram doesn't show exactly what you said. Not everyone has the sadistic streak. Some people, even if given the opportunity and resources, just won't commit murder on the whim of an authority figure. Most, of course, will. But your point at the end of this paragraph about taking responsibility...THAT is the primary point of Milgram. People LOVE to shift their responsibility onto someone else. A large proportion of us do. And when we shift the responsibility, we allow ourselves to be as fucking cruel as we want. And that is why this man needs to be held responsible for his actions, but so should all other soldiers. But again, by held responsible i do not mean thrown in jail. There needs to be another way. Not sure what other way there could be. Humans are just basic logic machines...all of our actions are completely transparent. There are a few bad eggs in humanity, that's just genetics and bad luck. Don't hold it against them, just stop them from being able to be bad. We're just chimps with some bells and whistles. I bet there are some chimps that are mass murderers too lol. Do you also think they deserve to be 'punished'? Or should they just be kept away from other chimps so they don't kill any? I mean, really, after all the mass crimes committed against the 'Injuns', I'm pretty sure the phrase 'everyone else was doing it' is the only thing that can get Americans off the hook. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Rain Dota 2 5379Horang2 3229Sea  1748Flash 1529Nal_rA 1312Larva  487Soulkey 269ZerO 260firebathero 234Pusan 199[ Show more ] League of Legends Counter-Strike Other Games B2W.Neo984 DeMusliM618 Fuzer  440crisheroes400 Happy265 Pyrionflax183 Skadoodle182 OGKoka  133semphis_24 ZerO(Twitch)21 Organizations StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War |
|
Replay Cast
SOOP
SKillous vs Spirit
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
PiG Sty Festival
Serral vs TriGGeR
Cure vs SHIN
The PondCast
Replay Cast
PiG Sty Festival
Clem vs Bunny
Solar vs Zoun
Replay Cast
Korean StarCraft League
PiG Sty Festival
herO vs Rogue
ByuN vs SKillous
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
