I Have No Ounce of Compassion for Human Beings

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Holiday20310401
 
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2009 08:10 pm
@Fido,
Fido wrote:
Community is morality..

This is fascist talk,
What if the community is mislead?, and there appears to be hate of the Jews "Yes I believe Jews were generally immoral" (something along those lines anyways). :eek:

You are willing to present the behaviour of Jews, yet you must understand it would be no different an outcome with other human beings too. Ofcourse this is obvious so nevermind, however, to hate the Jews as if categorizing the people to hate because they are Jews is a problem.
 
Fido
 
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 01:10 am
@manored,
manored wrote:
Then he said jews were immoral he obviously meant the vital part of the society that could have done something about it, no need to take this to the personal side.

It may have been more correct to say demoralized that immoral; because while many tend to look at Jews, or the Jews as a single group, in fact, they were as divided as the Muslims or the Christians are... The were divided among themselves..They were divided as individual, and very many of them were trying to join the societies they were living in and put Judaism behind... If we are all demoralize how can anyone point at anyone and say they were demoralized, or as I did and call them immoral... Only with the understanding that community is morality, and cut off from our communities, without community consciousness we are all immoral...What ever one can say about the Jews in the country of Israel, no one can say they are immoral...As human beings they hardly measure up, but they defend their people and their society no matter what the threat or the odds or the potential outcome... That is moral...That is what morality has always been... I will not justify what the nazis did by their success... They would have known some success regardless... But the willingness of the Jews to cooperate even in the death camps shows they were reduced to an individual existence...I do not fault them for it...It takes both the community and the individual to be moral, to meet each other in morality, and the notion of the individual as we hold it makes the individual powerful, and the community helpless... The Jews Excommunicated Spinosa... Isn't that the last time anyone has heard of that...They could not exclude..Everyone with the means, who thought they could pass for something other was excluding them...That is the power of the individual, and the individual is immoral...

Holiday20310401 wrote:
This is fascist talk,
What if the community is mislead?, and there appears to be hate of the Jews "Yes I believe Jews were generally immoral" (something along those lines anyways). :eek:

You are willing to present the behaviour of Jews, yet you must understand it would be no different an outcome with other human beings too. Ofcourse this is obvious so nevermind, however, to hate the Jews as if categorizing the people to hate because they are Jews is a problem.

Don't call me a fascist, fascist...I don't have to take that from you, and you can't show me a reason why I should...If you want my support for the statement, I'll give it to you, and make you eat your words...If you think you can better me then produce one example of individual morality...You see it has nothing to do with the way in which we treat ourselves...Morality is always a form of relationship; and with who??? Your community, Holiday...Why do you think ethic come from custom or character...Do you get your customs and character from some one else's community???Think of the original ethic: Blood is thicker than water??? So what if the community is wrong???That is your people; and who judges who??? Do you think it is moral for children to judge their parents or the other way around??? Save your labels, and work on your intelligence...Because I am defining it; and I am not defending it... The only way all our moralities will be one morality is if we can make it fit all of humanity, but then there is the problem, because morality as community defines all people as friend or foe, and aims at good in every instance for friends...Humanity has no credible enemies...So no need for ethics as we know them...
 
Justin
 
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 09:17 am
@Rannixx,
Ok, so what are we talking about? Folks, this is getting off topic a little.

We may consider opening up a discussion on the morality or immorality of the Jews if that's the discussion you all want to carry on with.
 
averroes
 
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 10:19 am
@Rannixx,
I do believe that being called and calling people stupid, facist and myriad other names during debate was what I came to this forum to avoid. Everyone has an opinion, it's the people who are willing to civilly listen to those opinions that deserve to be heard. Can we all settle down?

There was a line from a song by Immortal Tecnique that I think of when I think about Humanity: "Universal truth is not measured by mass appeal." Just because some ideal is popular doesn't mean that we should believe in it. If we all look at ourselves as Humanity, then we are on a sinking ship. We must take an individual approach to morality and life if Humanity is to be redeemed.
 
JLP
 
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 10:26 am
@Justin,
As something of a "misanthropologist" myself, I can relate to the disdain towards the nebulous "mankind at large." However, this contempt can also become paradoxical when contrasted with the numerous positive experiences I share with other people on a daily basis. I love my family and friends, and genuinely seem to get along with the vast majority of individuals I encounter.

While I am hesitant to analyze your feelings for you, I've come to a pleasing equilibrium by realizing that I don't really despise human beings per se, but rather instances of wasted potential, frailty, cruelty, etc. Put simply, certain traits, most of which are exhibited by all of us to largely varying extent.
It is important to judge things in a proper context, and without an air of pretentiousness. The holier-than-thou role does not a friend win over.
Human behavior is not always simple or predictable, and we do ourselves and others a disservice by writing them off without bothering to gather all of the facts. The facts give context, and that context provides a framework for learning; learning can often lead to understanding. When we understand why something is occuring, it becomes much less frustrating to deal with.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 11:43 am
@Fido,
Fido wrote:
What ever one can say about the Jews in the country of Israel, no one can say they are immoral...As human beings they hardly measure up
Nuff said. The Nazis thought the exact same thing.

Thanks for your point of view, Fido.
 
manored
 
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 01:09 pm
@Justin,
Justin wrote:
Ok, so what are we talking about? Folks, this is getting off topic a little.

We may consider opening up a discussion on the morality or immorality of the Jews if that's the discussion you all want to carry on with.
Indeed, but its common for interesting discussions to be born in the wrong topic, and normally in those cases nobody, not even the starter of the thread, is interested in continuing the old discussion, in wich case I think its fine to go off-topic... your decision thought, we will be waiting for it Smile

Aedes wrote:
You should all take this personally just because you're humans. And don't tell me what I should and should not take personally; I'm sorry, but I've been around the living history of this event enough that I feel entitled to take offense at this.
Taking offense at things is stupid: he is expressing his thoughts and therefore increasing your knowledge about him, not bending the world itself with his words, and getting angry at him because of the way he thinks will only be harmfull for both of you. You can try to change his thinking or interfere with his attempts of changing the thinking of others, but may you allow ourself to hate you will cause the two of you to conflict beyond what is necessary and healthy.

And morals are a community thing cause you need some kind of consensus about what is moral and what is not to hold moral values. I mean, if ever person has a different concept about what is moral and what is not, does the word even have a meaning? It would only mean your personal judgement of the thing, what, I believe, is not the meaning the word is supposed to have.
 
Icon
 
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 01:43 pm
@Fido,
Fido wrote:
It may have been more correct to say demoralized that immoral; because while many tend to look at Jews, ...



Fido, you made some good points in this post and yet seemed to remove your points just as avidly as you made them.

I am not sure what history you have but I would like to say that your views on the Jewish people are not only due, ONLY, to your personal experience but also somewhat ignorant.

Example: as you sit here and say that many Jews stabbed others in the back, you also forget what occurred in the death camps with the Jews which stuck together and tried to fight the tyranny. The ones who faced death together and tried to resist. A good majority of the Jews were not this immoral/demoralized traitor which you would portray them to be. Not even half... Not even a quarter.

I love your enthusiasm for making a point and your eloquence is commendable but your ignorance (and I do not mean this as an insult) is your downfall. This judgment that you are making is unfounded and certainly not due to your experience of the times. You were not there and do not know the whole story.
manored wrote:

Taking offense at things is stupid: he is expressing his thoughts and therefore increasing your knowledge about him, not bending the world itself with his words.

And morals are a community thing cause you need some kind of consensus about what is moral and what is not to hold moral values.


Am I the only one who sees this as a contradiction?

He is not bending his words to fit the world but morality is community... So, by your words, he is being immoral by not bending his words to match the community which he is in... Just thought I would point that out.


To another point... This thread has been over for quite some time. It has turned into a thread on morality and religion. If you will all take notice of the philosophy forums, we have places for each of those. I see no reason for this thread to continue as the main idea has long since been overlooked. If you would like to continue this heated debate, I suggest taking it up in a more appropriate forum.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 03:05 pm
@Holiday20310401,
Holiday20310401;43329 wrote:
I suppose maybe we could speculate on Hitler, and his compassion towards human beings? It seems an awkward assertion to say he had no compassion for human beings otherwise it would be ideal to in the end(even though there is no way to prove this) get rid of the whole human race.
That actually WAS more or less his ambition, especially as the war went on.

Hitler had a very apocalyptic vision and outlook. This was initially directed eastwards towards the "judeobolsheviks" (Hitler always conflated Jews with Bolshevism). This is why he self-consciously waged a war of annihilation against Stalin and ordered a brutal scorched earth policy to be carried out by various agents of the armed forces, the SS, and the governors of the occupied territories. This policy was never enacted against the West except in very isolated and limited forms, like the bombing campaign against London.

But as the tide turned, especially after the catastrophic losses at Stalingrad, then Kursk, then Normandy, then the Ardennes, not to mention the assassination attempt, he turned his apocalyptic ideas inwards to Germany. He knowingly and willingly brought about the complete and total destruction of Germany by fighting an utterly hopeless war down to the last window and basement and alley in Berlin. He threw kids on bikes and old men out into the street to take on the Red Army. This was against objections by all but the most blindly loyal officers, and it was one of his many many many crimes -- an utter wastage of lives for nothing.

And one quote of his towards the end of the war was something to the effect of it doesn't really matter if Germany is destroyed, all the good Germans are dead anyway. (By this he was almost exclusively referring to the members of the SS and the original members of the Wermacht before the war in Russia turned into a nightmare).

Hitler had ideas about honorable death, which in part meant dying for a cause even if the cause was completely hopeless.

And while I haven't read much of the psychological accounts about Hitler, I think he was somewhat influenced by Richard Wagner's Ring cycle. Wagner, if you're unfamiliar, was a famous opera composer in the mid-late 19th century. He remains one of the greatest influences on modern film music (especially on music like Star Wars). And much of his operatic work was about Teutonic history. The Ring cycle (Der Ring das Nibelungen) was an enormous mythic epic opera (I own it, it's 16 CDs long) adapted from the medieval Nordic and German stories the Nibelungenlied and the Volsung Saga, as well as some Viking stories found in the Eddas. Wagner was a galloping antisemite, he wrote treatises railing against Jews and he would certainly have been a flag-waving Nazi if he lived that long.

I bring this up, because the last opera in Wagner's Ring cycle is called Gotterdamerung (the Twilight of the Gods), and it's an apocalyptic account that includes the collapse of Valhalla. This is loosely extracted from Norse mythology as found in the Poetic Edda.

And Hitler I think saw no other ending to his dominion other than complete destruction, apocalypse, ruin. There was no humanitarian or compassion in this vision. He'd just as soon take the entire world down with him -- and that's exactly what he did.

Quote:
He just had no compassion for his past perhaps, for himself? I mean, he didn't have blonde hair, or blue eyes, yet that was his ideal right?
Not really his ideal. More that of people like Joeseph Goebbels, Alfred Rosenberg, Wilhelm Frick, and the Nazi doctors. Not to say that Hitler didn't have his ideals, and he loved to go pinch the cheeks of blond girls in pigtails and pat the heads of his Hitler Youth, but to Hitler it was all more ideological than racial.
 
manored
 
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 03:37 pm
@Rannixx,
Icon wrote:
Am I the only one who sees this as a contradiction?

He is not bending his words to fit the world but morality is community... So, by your words, he is being immoral by not bending his words to match the community which he is in... Just thought I would point that out.
I said "not bending the world with his words" and I meant it literally Smile Note that the l is on the first word.
 
Icon
 
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 06:20 pm
@manored,
manored wrote:
I said "not bending the world with his words" and I meant it literally Smile Note that the l is on the first word.

Forgive me. I misread it.
 
Fido
 
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 06:39 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes wrote:
Nuff said. The Nazis thought the exact same thing.

Thanks for your point of view, Fido.

The Nazis thought they did not measure up to humanity on the basis of genes; and I do not believe they measure up because they think they are better, and end up acting worse... They defend themselves... Considering their behavior with the Nazis; that at least is moral... As morality has been from days beyond human memory...
 
Fido
 
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 07:05 pm
@Icon,
Icon wrote:
Fido, you made some good points in this post and yet seemed to remove your points just as avidly as you made them.

I am not sure what history you have but I would like to say that your views on the Jewish people are not only due, ONLY, to your personal experience but also somewhat ignorant.

Example: as you sit here and say that many Jews stabbed others in the back, you also forget what occurred in the death camps with the Jews which stuck together and tried to fight the tyranny. The ones who faced death together and tried to resist. A good majority of the Jews were not this immoral/demoralized traitor which you would portray them to be. Not even half... Not even a quarter.

I love your enthusiasm for making a point and your eloquence is commendable but your ignorance (and I do not mean this as an insult) is your downfall. This judgment that you are making is unfounded and certainly not due to your experience of the times. You were not there and do not know the whole story.


Am I the only one who sees this as a contradiction?

He is not bending his words to fit the world but morality is community... So, by your words, he is being immoral by not bending his words to match the community which he is in... Just thought I would point that out.


To another point... This thread has been over for quite some time. It has turned into a thread on morality and religion. If you will all take notice of the philosophy forums, we have places for each of those. I see no reason for this thread to continue as the main idea has long since been overlooked. If you would like to continue this heated debate, I suggest taking it up in a more appropriate forum.

I will concede that the thing came at them pretty fast and hit them very hard, and once they got to the camps they did not have much time for consideration... I live in a society that seems to desire to weaken itself beyond belief to feed a class of wealthy who care nothing for country or people... I trust the same thing happened to the Jews, where so many who thought nothing like that could possibly occur among the Germans who had had law and order for nearly a thousand years, and felt surprised and hurt... A lot of those people had crossed over into thinking of themselves as more German, or Polish than Jewish... In the process many made enemies, and curried resentment... And I do not deny that many faced death with heroism, and kept others alive... Ultimately, those places could not have run without them, and many survived for personal reason when that meant making themselves indispensible to the Nazis.... I have not once heard anyone say those places could have run without the Jews, and while trains were run in, and emptied directly into the gas chambers, still, some Jews survived there for years...They were not alone; but not all people were there under a death sentence... We marvel at what people do to survive, and seldom ask if survival is really the object... When death is the product who wants to be a part of the machine???
 
Aedes
 
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2009 07:14 pm
@Fido,
Fido;43500 wrote:
They defend themselves... Considering their behavior with the Nazis; that at least is moral
Most did not have a way to defend themselves, and to get slaughtered isn't moral. That's not to dispute that there weren't a limitless examples of stunning bravery on the part of the victims, Jews and non-Jews alike.

Fido wrote:
The Nazis thought they did not measure up to humanity on the basis of genes and I do not believe they measure up because they think they are better, and end up acting worse
They, meaning Jews in general, as you've said.

The behavior of the state of Israel, first is the action of a STATE and not a PEOPLE, second is not even representative of all in the Israeli government, third is something you might reinterpret if you were the one living with suicide bombers and rocket attacks, fourth is representative of a state that is 61 years old and should not be extrapolated to any OTHER part of the Jewish experience or identity in the last oh 4000 years.

But the thing is, when you say "I don't think they measure up" as "human beings" and you refer to Jews in general, and the sole source of your information on Jews is your "first father-in-law", you should hardly be surprised that you come off as an ignorant bigot.

Whether that's what you really think like, or how you really want to be heard, you'll have the opportunity to clarify your views elsewhere.

But this thread, for one, is done.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/19/2024 at 05:34:05