89 y/o accused of 29k counts accessory to murder - Page 3

On May 12 2009 11:44 {88}iNcontroL wrote:


read the thread before posting.. I already addressed that very issue. You'd have to ignore the post to get where you did.

On May 12 2009 11:47 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:


you don't seem to understand the part where punishing someone for making a choice, when there was no morally sound choice, is retarded

On May 12 2009 11:50 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:


Preposterous. He was a guard, even in the worst of times one always has a choice especially when it comes to morals. He could have chosen not to commit crimes and objected, would he himself have been killed probably or probably not. That is not the discussion. But he did have a choice.

On May 12 2009 11:47 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:


you don't seem to understand the part where punishing someone for making a decision (specifically, the one more beneficial to them) when there was no morally sound choice, is retarded

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.

On May 12 2009 11:55 {88}iNcontroL wrote:


NOt only do I understand it.. I discuss it. Again, read the part of my post where I address this.. if you have something specific to say to that great, that is called "conversation." Randomly mumbling shit nobody is discussing and applying it randomly to posts is called "bad posting."

So is the ol "reading comprehension is good" joke. Grow up or gtfo

On May 12 2009 11:50 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:


Preposterous. He was a guard, even in the worst of times one always has a choice especially when it comes to morals. He could have chosen not to commit crimes and objected, would he himself have been killed probably or probably not. That is not the discussion. But he did have a choice.

On May 12 2009 11:50 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:


Preposterous. He was a guard, even in the worst of times one always has a choice especially when it comes to morals. He could have chosen not to commit crimes and objected, would he himself have been killed probably or probably not. That is not the discussion. But he did have a choice.

On May 12 2009 12:06 ktp wrote:
This story sounds a lot like "The Reader".

This is the problem with using todays standards to look into crimes commited in the past. Being a Nazi prison guard from todays point of view is considered very evil only because its 60 years later and people are better educated. But back then there was nothing illegal about being a prison guard. So do we have a right to punish them even though back then there was nothing wrong with what they were doing?

Personally I'm ganna go with no on this one. I know for a fact that everyone here is probably doing something that will be considered heinous in 60 years. All that shit talking over the internet we do may seem innocent and fun right now but what if in 60 years its considered a crime punishable by death? Yikes, how the fuck were we supose to know? Standards and morals change so much over time, you can't hold people accountable that lived during a different era.

On May 12 2009 12:08 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
???

You aren't following my logic. I agree he had no choice if in fact he made the decision to preserve himself and his family. He was forced into an impossible situation. But how the hell do you get away from the fact he was still a conscious human being, guarding and doing other actions at a camp where they peeled the flesh from jews and made lamps? I cannot fathom how someone can say "oh well he was forced to do it." No.. many other people were given the same predicament and decided on the higher ground. Justice must be dished out to everyone involved. I don't care if a person was a fucking janitor mopping up the pulled teeth and bloody stalls.. they were a part of humanities worst atrocities.

Hell I'd fucking injure myself to get out of the duty. I'd flee the country. I'd divorce my wife and send her away with the kids (if they exist) and do _something_ to stop this. Self-preservation only gets you so far.. the world has literally never seen anything like what the nazis did to human beings.. methodically, experimentally and ever-so-slowly.

On May 12 2009 12:08 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
???

You aren't following my logic. I agree he had no choice if in fact he made the decision to preserve himself and his family. He was forced into an impossible situation. But how the hell do you get away from the fact he was still a conscious human being, guarding and doing other actions at a camp where they peeled the flesh from jews and made lamps? I cannot fathom how someone can say "oh well he was forced to do it." No.. many other people were given the same predicament and decided on the higher ground. Justice must be dished out to everyone involved. I don't care if a person was a fucking janitor mopping up the pulled teeth and bloody stalls.. they were a part of humanities worst atrocities.

Hell I'd fucking injure myself to get out of the duty. I'd flee the country. I'd divorce my wife and send her away with the kids (if they exist) and do _something_ to stop this. Self-preservation only gets you so far.. the world has literally never seen anything like what the nazis did to human beings.. methodically, experimentally and ever-so-slowly.

On May 12 2009 12:09 {88}iNcontroL wrote:


I'm going to hope and wish beyond wish that you are capable of seeing how wrong this is. Are you REALLY going to make the argument that "standards and morals change" as if suggesting it was ok to do what they did because it was 60 years ago? WHAT THE FUCK?

On May 12 2009 12:17 Brett wrote:

In relation to the bolded part of your post, you've already answered the question yourself with the previous sentence. "He was forced into an impossible situation". That is how people fathom the commission of such atrocities on a grand scale: They had to choose to be responsible for the harm/death of someone they had never met, or be responsible for the harm/death of their family. There is reason in that argument.

The argument obviously starts to break down when you consider how methodical some of this was, the scale of the atrocities, and the lack of direct application of duress though (Which seems to be where you're coming from, and I do understand that).

On May 12 2009 12:20 ktp wrote:


If course his actions weren't ok! But its only unacceptable because you live in today's society and have been educated about the Holocaust. Circumstance changes EVERYTHING.

And I don't know much about the legal system but I'm pretty sure it doesn't operate based on one's moral actions. You are under the assumption that if you are an complice to a crime then you should do everything you can do stop it from happening. If you don't, then you must be punished. If the law operated that way, we would all be put to death in jail. Everyone is an acommplice in crime, we are all 2 individuals away from illegal narcotics. Lets all have fun playing BW in prison.

On May 12 2009 12:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
HIS choice. Morality can never be taken away, ever. I'm not arguing the legal aspect of his actions. But the fact that he HAD an SS tattoo which he removed put into his morals during the process.