Riots in the city of love

[Will Bouwman]

...I can't guess why you even mentioned the idea that God might be too forgiving to sinners...

Mr Can, you are as mad and delusional as a very big box of mad and delusional frogs.

And yet...no explanation for your own objection.

Mr Can, part of what makes you delusional is that you hallucinate things that haven't been written and you are mad enough to believe your own inventions. If you go back to the source material, anything I have ever posted on this forum, you will not find me complaining that any god is "too forgiving to sinners"; not those specific words, nor any that could be interpreted that way by anyone not mad and delusional.

[Immanuel Can]

Mr Can, part of what makes you delusional is that you hallucinate things...you will not find me complaining that any god is "too forgiving to sinners"; not those specific words, nor any that could be interpreted that way...

Did you not write:

So a Christian who starts a war is not "an errant and confused person", they're just a person. Three Hail Marys, or whatever propitiations you believe efficacious, will fix that.

(You did, of course.)

So you didn't mean to imply any criticism?

Interesting. So now you want me to believe that "a Christian who starts a war" getting "three Hail Mary's or whatever propitiations" to "fix that" is not an implication from you of anything amiss? Were that so, you'd have an odd moral compass. Usually, starting wars is considered bad, and doing very small gestures and getting away with it would be considered disproportionate to the badness entailed.

But you say that's not what you meant? Well, mea culpa.

[Impenitent]

the devil made me do it...

-Imp

Too bad you are responsible for any evil you commit. Or do you believe that all evil is the work of the devil and human beings don't have free will?

unless you work for Hitler...

-Imp

[Impenitent]

Well, I wouldn't give Hitler credit for those who stood against him...but I would give him blame for those who obeyed him.

if it weren't for Hitler, no one would have stood...

-Imp

I can't claim to be able to make sense of that response. What do you mean? That the people who refused to do the evil that Hitler commanded were somehow bad?

the credit/blame cuts both ways...

-Imp

[Gary Childress]

the devil made me do it...

-Imp

Too bad you are responsible for any evil you commit. Or do you believe that all evil is the work of the devil and human beings don't have free will?

unless you work for Hitler...

-Imp

Fair point. So it's difficult to say that Goebbels wasn't complicit with Hitler in making the wars possible through propagandizing the public. And he seemed to knowingly lie to the public and support Hitler through all the atrocities. He was tried for that. Himmler was despicable. Germans of the SS were slaughtered to the last man in some cases by the end of the war when the Russians got them. They carried their loyalty to Hitler to the extreme and committed many of the worst atrocities of the war. I can't conscientiously protest Goebbels and other overt war criminals for dying for their deeds even though they may have simply been following orders.

But what about a German soldier who doesn't directly commit a war crime but is simply following his German duty to "defend" his country? Is such a person responsible for any crimes? Is such a person even technically responsible for killing another human being who is a combatant in the course of a battle? Goebbels knew full well what he was doing. Not all Germans knew about the atrocities, and even those who did may have been in a moral dilemma where they felt it was their duty to defend Germany "right or wrong". And if they didn't defend Germany "right" or "wrong", do you think they would have been excused from the battlefield? Was "conscientious objector" even a thing in Nazi Germany (Honest Question)? Unless I'm mistaken, a German could be punished for cowardice or treason for evading duty to the Army. Is such a person responsible for a crime? What do you think?

[Immanuel Can]

if it weren't for Hitler, no one would have stood...

-Imp

I can't claim to be able to make sense of that response. What do you mean? That the people who refused to do the evil that Hitler commanded were somehow bad?

the credit/blame cuts both ways...

-Imp

Nope. Still not at all clear. It looks like you're blaming those who opposed Hitler, because it was Hitler they opposed. That would make no sense.

[Gary Childress]

I can't claim to be able to make sense of that response. What do you mean? That the people who refused to do the evil that Hitler commanded were somehow bad?

the credit/blame cuts both ways...

-Imp

Nope. Still not at all clear. It looks like you're blaming those who opposed Hitler, because it was Hitler they opposed. That would make no sense.

I could be wrong, but I think what he's trying to get at is that if I oppose a war, then I should blame the soldiers who fought in the war for the people they kill on the battlefield. I do not, unless what they did in the process was a specific war crime that the US recognizes as a war crime. And yes, if the US doesn't consider killing or torturing prisoners a war crime, then I think we are opening our own people up to killing and torture as prisoners, and I don't want that, so "yes", killing or torturing prisoners would be a war crime whether the US recognizes it as such or not. As a citizen and a voter, I have my own values that may not always jibe with my country's.

[Immanuel Can]

the credit/blame cuts both ways...

-Imp

Nope. Still not at all clear. It looks like you're blaming those who opposed Hitler, because it was Hitler they opposed. That would make no sense.

I could be wrong, but I think what he's trying to get at is that if I oppose a war, then I should blame the soldiers who fought in the war for the people they kill on the battlefield.

Well, those would either be people who were doing it themselves, or following Hitler's orders. Either alternative. But what about those who opposed Hitler? Quite a few Germans did, actually...or at least, there were quite a few who refused his orders. What about them?

I don't think you know what he's trying to say, any more than I do.

[Gary Childress]

Nope. Still not at all clear. It looks like you're blaming those who opposed Hitler, because it was Hitler they opposed. That would make no sense.

I could be wrong, but I think what he's trying to get at is that if I oppose a war, then I should blame the soldiers who fought in the war for the people they kill on the battlefield.

Well, those would either be people who were doing it themselves, or following Hitler's orders. Either alternative. But what about those who opposed Hitler? Quite a few Germans did, actually...or at least, there were quite a few who refused his orders. What about them?

I don't think you know what he's trying to say, any more than I do.

Of course, I think people who opposed Hitler were probably the most rational people in Germany at the time. Did you actually think I would disapprove of people who opposed Hitler?

[Impenitent]

I can't claim to be able to make sense of that response. What do you mean? That the people who refused to do the evil that Hitler commanded were somehow bad?

the credit/blame cuts both ways...

-Imp

Nope. Still not at all clear. It looks like you're blaming those who opposed Hitler, because it was Hitler they opposed. That would make no sense.

a soldier pulls the trigger and another soldier dies

are you blaming Hitler or Roosevelt?

-Imp

[Immanuel Can]

the credit/blame cuts both ways...

-Imp

Nope. Still not at all clear. It looks like you're blaming those who opposed Hitler, because it was Hitler they opposed. That would make no sense.

a soldier pulls the trigger and another soldier dies

are you blaming Hitler or Roosevelt?

-Imp

Well, responsibility is divided between the giver of the orders and the follower. But why would somebody who disobeyed Hitler or Roosevelt, and did not shoot, be guilty of anything?

[Immanuel Can]

I could be wrong, but I think what he's trying to get at is that if I oppose a war, then I should blame the soldiers who fought in the war for the people they kill on the battlefield.

Well, those would either be people who were doing it themselves, or following Hitler's orders. Either alternative. But what about those who opposed Hitler? Quite a few Germans did, actually...or at least, there were quite a few who refused his orders. What about them?

I don't think you know what he's trying to say, any more than I do.

Of course, I think people who opposed Hitler were probably the most rational people in Germany at the time. Did you actually think I would disapprove of people who opposed Hitler?

I was asking about Imp. His usual common sense seemed to have broken down, so I wanted to check if he was really meaning what he seemed to mean.

[Impenitent]

Too bad you are responsible for any evil you commit. Or do you believe that all evil is the work of the devil and human beings don't have free will?

unless you work for Hitler...

-Imp

Fair point. So it's difficult to say that Goebbels wasn't complicit with Hitler in making the wars possible through propagandizing the public. And he seemed to knowingly lie to the public and support Hitler through all the atrocities. He was tried for that. Himmler was despicable. Germans of the SS were slaughtered to the last man in some cases by the end of the war when the Russians got them. They carried their loyalty to Hitler to the extreme and committed many of the worst atrocities of the war. I can't conscientiously protest Goebbels and other overt war criminals for dying for their deeds even though they may have simply been following orders.

But what about a German soldier who doesn't directly commit a war crime but is simply following his German duty to "defend" his country? Is such a person responsible for any crimes? Is such a person even technically responsible for killing another human being who is a combatant in the course of a battle? Goebbels knew full well what he was doing. Not all Germans knew about the atrocities, and even those who did may have been in a moral dilemma where they felt it was their duty to defend Germany "right or wrong". And if they didn't defend Germany "right" or "wrong", do you think they would have been excused from the battlefield? Was "conscientious objector" even a thing in Nazi Germany (Honest Question)? Unless I'm mistaken, a German could be punished for cowardice or treason for evading duty to the Army. Is such a person responsible for a crime? What do you think?

enlist in the army or go to a camp in Auschwitz...

I don't know if absolution is required, I only know I can't give it to others who have not personally wronged me...

-Imp

[Impenitent]

Nope. Still not at all clear. It looks like you're blaming those who opposed Hitler, because it was Hitler they opposed. That would make no sense.

a soldier pulls the trigger and another soldier dies

are you blaming Hitler or Roosevelt?

-Imp

Well, responsibility is divided between the giver of the orders and the follower. But why would somebody who disobeyed Hitler or Roosevelt, and did not shoot, be guilty of anything?

insubordination is not a mortal sin

duty is a fickle thing

-Imp

[Immanuel Can]

a soldier pulls the trigger and another soldier dies

are you blaming Hitler or Roosevelt?

-Imp

Well, responsibility is divided between the giver of the orders and the follower. But why would somebody who disobeyed Hitler or Roosevelt, and did not shoot, be guilty of anything?

insubordination is not a mortal sin

Actually I would think that refusing immoral leadership was itself a moral act.