Seasons
This is a forum or general chit-chat, small talk, a "hey, how ya doing?" and such. Or hell, get crazy deep on something. Whatever you like.
Posts 5,584 - 5,595 of 6,170
Posts 5,584 - 5,595 of 6,170
That reminds me of an old joke about a Scottish sheep herder that is inappropriate here, but it involves building a bridge and not being called "The bridge builder" and but after one questionable act, being named that for life.
So Prob, are you one to judge by net results then?
So Prob, are you one to judge by net results then?
Not net results, but anything like millions of innocent lives makes me discount a few nice words here and there. A person like Hitler, Pol Pot, and Poppa Doc were capable of such horrors makes me discount any warm fuzzies and insincere. There is a point where deeds are so horrendous that nothing can blot them away.
I look at it more like I'm glad I wasn't Hitler. Maybe I'm a Presbyterian after all . . .
It's just, no, I haven't done anything close to the evil of the Holocaust. But I've done some pretty bad things in my time. I feel sorry for Hitler's victims, but that doesn't keep me from feeling sorry for him. What was eating his soul alive to make him mastermind such a thing?
It's just, no, I haven't done anything close to the evil of the Holocaust. But I've done some pretty bad things in my time. I feel sorry for Hitler's victims, but that doesn't keep me from feeling sorry for him. What was eating his soul alive to make him mastermind such a thing?
Actually there are a few theories. One is that watching his mother die of cancer unhinge what little grasp he had on things for a while, and he emerged not only finding a target to blame, but in his odd way twisting it into a way to try to save his mother substitute (Germany) from what he saw ans a cancer (jews and inferior peoples eating her away and destroying her). By itself a bit of a stretch, but maybe part of the picture.
Yeah, who knows. On a lighter, tangential note, I've always pulled for Hannibal Lecter in those books/movies -- I suspect most people do (my mother doesn't, which shores up my suspicion).
Hannibal never spoke to me, but I fall for vampires and mad scientists in a heartbeat. I guess I was never a food person. Restaurants do nothing for me either.
Many people, me included, watched mothers die horribly. I don't think that gives me an excuse to torture others. I think humans are more than a "program". I think we make decisions. We all make mistakes. Genocide isn't in the same category as nail biting etc.
There is a big difference between pulling for the villain in a movie or book. That is a safe way to mentally deal with some assorted issues. I think you would find yourself repulsed by such a person in real life.
There is a big difference between pulling for the villain in a movie or book. That is a safe way to mentally deal with some assorted issues. I think you would find yourself repulsed by such a person in real life.
Bev, of course there is a history of discrimination in Europe! A very long, bloody, ugly history of racism, bigotry, hatred... The WW2, a whole-sale genocide that the Third Reich was, is perhaps the best known example of this. It is also a clue as to why are Europeans so cautious, and feel so uncomfortable, when it comes to classifying based on race/ religion. Again, I'm talking about de-formalization, and re-formalization, of categories - I do not suggest for a moment that actual racism and bigotry are gone. Quite to the contrary, they are on the rise ever since Dick Cheney declared holy war on terror - a racist doctrine per definition.
As to how they go around statistics on racial/ religious groups... well, the truth is, once again, one does not see too many statistics expressed in these terms. Also, there are many Jewish, Moslem, and other groups and associations who keep track on much of the stuff a government might want to know, too. These organizations are well integrated into larger stately administration, many of them are even subsidized by government. That's where information regarding any aspect of these groups' social dynamics could come from when needed.
Now, Moslem in Croatia... There are relatively few Moslem in Craoatia really, the place to consider is (former) Yugoslavia. Two parties in conflict were Croats and Serbs, both Christian, Catholic and Orthodox, respectively. They were also the principle partners behind the first Yugoslavia (formed after the WW-I), they came up with the second, the socialist one, following the WW-II. Finally, the Serbs bombed it to pieces, and Croats were only too happy to get out of it.
The Moslem were always kind of caught in between. Both, Serbs and Croats, considered Moslem to be Serbs/ Croats who were forcibly converted to Islam by Ottoman Turks, centuries ago, 550, 600 years ago... Which is all true except that the people converted back then were neither Croat, nor Serb, and not all of them were even Christian. At least, that's how the Bosnian Moslem feel about it. Serbs have more of a hard core attitude towards Moslem, whereas Croats always tried to court them into alliance. So much so that the Ustashe regime of WW-II fascist Croatia - historically, the most extreme expression of Croatian nationalism - and yet, these people considered Moslem to be "a flowering core of Croatian nation" (well... something to that effect, anachronic, deeply patriarchal expression of possessive, devouring love) - Ustashe even had an elite military unit composed of Moslem only.
The Croats in Bosnia today would prefer to be a part of Croatia, but that's not because they have a problem with Moslem, but rather, they don't believe Richard Holbrooke's Patchwork Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina is politically "sustainable".
As to how they go around statistics on racial/ religious groups... well, the truth is, once again, one does not see too many statistics expressed in these terms. Also, there are many Jewish, Moslem, and other groups and associations who keep track on much of the stuff a government might want to know, too. These organizations are well integrated into larger stately administration, many of them are even subsidized by government. That's where information regarding any aspect of these groups' social dynamics could come from when needed.
Now, Moslem in Croatia... There are relatively few Moslem in Craoatia really, the place to consider is (former) Yugoslavia. Two parties in conflict were Croats and Serbs, both Christian, Catholic and Orthodox, respectively. They were also the principle partners behind the first Yugoslavia (formed after the WW-I), they came up with the second, the socialist one, following the WW-II. Finally, the Serbs bombed it to pieces, and Croats were only too happy to get out of it.
The Moslem were always kind of caught in between. Both, Serbs and Croats, considered Moslem to be Serbs/ Croats who were forcibly converted to Islam by Ottoman Turks, centuries ago, 550, 600 years ago... Which is all true except that the people converted back then were neither Croat, nor Serb, and not all of them were even Christian. At least, that's how the Bosnian Moslem feel about it. Serbs have more of a hard core attitude towards Moslem, whereas Croats always tried to court them into alliance. So much so that the Ustashe regime of WW-II fascist Croatia - historically, the most extreme expression of Croatian nationalism - and yet, these people considered Moslem to be "a flowering core of Croatian nation" (well... something to that effect, anachronic, deeply patriarchal expression of possessive, devouring love) - Ustashe even had an elite military unit composed of Moslem only.
The Croats in Bosnia today would prefer to be a part of Croatia, but that's not because they have a problem with Moslem, but rather, they don't believe Richard Holbrooke's Patchwork Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina is politically "sustainable".
Bev writes:
So one who commits great good and great evil in equal measures is not better or worse than the average Joe?
That seems plausible to me. It would seem to be implicit in the idea of redemption. If one does something terrible, one can make up for it by doing something terribly good.
That seems plausible to me. It would seem to be implicit in the idea of redemption. If one does something terrible, one can make up for it by doing something terribly good.
Bev writes:
And what role does intent and outcome play in the analysis?
It seems to me that intent is necessary for an action to be evil.
IMHO, many people place too much emphasis on outcome. Let's say two people, A and B, drive home in equal states of drunkenness. It happens that a child darts into the road in front of A, and because A is intoxicated, he fails to swerve or stop, and the child is killed. B, on the other hand, gets home without killing anyone, just by luck. Legally speaking, A has committed a much more severe crime than B, but morally speaking, I consider them to have done exactly the same (I'm assuming that when they get into their cars, the probability that A will kill someone on the way home is the same as the probability that B will kill someone on the way home). They both took a chance on having an accident. B was lucky, which is morally irrelevant.
It seems to me that intent is necessary for an action to be evil.
IMHO, many people place too much emphasis on outcome. Let's say two people, A and B, drive home in equal states of drunkenness. It happens that a child darts into the road in front of A, and because A is intoxicated, he fails to swerve or stop, and the child is killed. B, on the other hand, gets home without killing anyone, just by luck. Legally speaking, A has committed a much more severe crime than B, but morally speaking, I consider them to have done exactly the same (I'm assuming that when they get into their cars, the probability that A will kill someone on the way home is the same as the probability that B will kill someone on the way home). They both took a chance on having an accident. B was lucky, which is morally irrelevant.
But the average Joe sucks. That's the point -- you want to behave better, have more charity towards others, etc., than the average Joe. The average Joe situation is what we have on our hands here. Is that guy in the White House anything but an average Joe with power and puppeteers?
None of us are the average Joe! Welcome to Lake Woebegone, where all the children are above average and all the men are good looking! As I look down on the "little" people, I think "Why must everybody but me suck so much?" (I was making fun of myself there, not the Clerk).
Even though IRL there are times I do suck (metaphorically speaking), sometimes I think evil is better tolerated than suckiness. I mean, good intentions aside, if you mess up a lot, people will avoid you (unless you are a wacky red head in the 50s, then you get a TV show), or they give each other that look when you say something and ask you to help out at the greeters table where you can't do much damage. If you are evil, but effective, people respect you. From a personal and philosophical standpoint we would like right thought to match right actions, but if it doesn't work out, more people want to hang out with the sick bastard who can get things done than the well-meaning spazz.
Even though IRL there are times I do suck (metaphorically speaking), sometimes I think evil is better tolerated than suckiness. I mean, good intentions aside, if you mess up a lot, people will avoid you (unless you are a wacky red head in the 50s, then you get a TV show), or they give each other that look when you say something and ask you to help out at the greeters table where you can't do much damage. If you are evil, but effective, people respect you. From a personal and philosophical standpoint we would like right thought to match right actions, but if it doesn't work out, more people want to hang out with the sick bastard who can get things done than the well-meaning spazz.
» More new posts: Doghead's Cosmic Bar