| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
LaSt)ChAnCe
United States2179 Posts
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. 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 | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
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 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. | ||
|
LaSt)ChAnCe
United States2179 Posts
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. i didn't say there was no choice, i said there was no "morally sound choice" -reading comprehension is fun | ||
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
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 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 | ||
|
Brett
Australia3823 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. Well, it really depends on how much pressure was placed on them to comply with the orders and the harm that would flow from non-compliance. There is a valid legal defence of duress... E.g. If someone holds a gun to my head and tells me to rape a girl that that person has held captive (and I hold an honest belief that this person is capable of killing me and likely to do so should I not comply), and I rape the girl, I am not guilty of the rape... It is a complete defence leading to acquittal. The waters get murky however when you start talking about inflicting a greater harm than that you would be subjected to.. which is where I assume the duress defence fails in war crime trials. I must admit I haven't looked into international criminal law from that perspective... | ||
|
LaSt)ChAnCe
United States2179 Posts
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 applying it randomly? i read all of your posts, and as a general response to everything you said which implies you feel that regardless of the situation he should be punished in some form, my opinion is that i feel you should not be punished for deciding on the choice that benefits you the most when you are given multiple choices - none of which are acceptable i realize that you may have nothing to say to invalidate that - because these are both opinions, and there is no solid yes or no, in which case you should simply stop replying to me edit - the reading comprehension comment was a low-blow, i give you that | ||
FakeSteve[TPR]
Valhalla18444 Posts
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. its not really a choice  incontrol is on a more sensible track when he says the guy should be held accountable regardless, but seriously the choice between 'do this' and 'die' isnt a choice at all. it's not 'probably or probably not', this is the nazi german army we're talking about. they would without a shadow of a doubt have killed him for refusing his orders | ||
|
Brett
Australia3823 Posts
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. There is a choice, yes. But under duress you not possess, at law, a 'free choice to refrain from doing the act'. That's a direct quote from one of the leading Australian cases on the matter. The discussion therefore is relevant to whether that person, the guard in this case, should be punished for his decision in circumstances where his will may have been overborne. I'm not saying it was in this man's case, but it certainly could be for others in a similar position in Nazi Germany. | ||
|
ktp
United States797 Posts
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. | ||
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
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. | ||
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
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. 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? | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
LaSt)ChAnCe
United States2179 Posts
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. I'm following your logic, I see your position on the matter and understand it, and you are wrong that he had no choice, he did have a choice - he had multiple choices, the problem is that none of them were morally acceptable, and he made the one that involved self-preservation, and (I feel) as such, shouldn't be held accountable for that. | ||
|
Brett
Australia3823 Posts
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. 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). | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
ktp
United States797 Posts
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? 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. | ||
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
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). But it isn't just "someone" it is 29k someones. And it wasn't the "death" it was the dehumanization and the grotesque slaughter of a people.. genocide. I'm sorry but I would risk my family for that cause. I couldn't live with the blood of an entire race of people on my hands because I have family in the country. I'd do everything I could to get my family away and safe (like many other people did) and that'd be that. | ||
|
rushz0rz
Canada5300 Posts
| ||
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
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. You are making a terrible argument dude. And it is in a thread discussing ethics revolving around the holocaust. Fucking watch yourself. Playing BW is not the fucking same as guarding a jewish death camp. Sorry. | ||
|
Brett
Australia3823 Posts
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. I understand your position, and as far as morals are concerned, you're right; there is a moral 'high road' he could have taken. But I'm pretty certain the whole premise of this discussion flows from the fact that the man is now being tried. Thus the issue of legal responsibility is very relevant... And the law recognises that 'freedom of choice' to refrain from doing an act can be taken away from you. | ||
| ||
|
|
Yamato Cup
BSL Open Qualifier
BSL Open Qualifier
OSC
Replay Cast
Afreeca Starleague
Soma vs Jaedong
WardiTV Weekly
Monday Night Weeklies
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Afreeca Starleague
Leta vs Soulkey
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
