And no one is doing that. Keep strawmanning, though, maybe sooner or later some of that mud you're throwing will stick. People are curious that he doesn't feel guilt for collaborating with nazis against his fellows or trashing economies for profit.
And the response to this is that lots of people collaborated with Nazis against their fellows in the extremity of a survival situation. That they should feel their acts - despite being clearly evil acts, without the context of that survival imperative - are justified and therefore feel no guilt is not something that we, comfortable in our Nazi-free environment, are in any position to judge.
nescientist on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
1.
to work, one with another; cooperate, as on a literary work: They collaborated on a novel.
2.
to cooperate, usually willingly, with an enemy nation, esp. with an enemy occupying one's country: He collaborated with the Nazis during World War II.
That you think I have an agenda and are unwilling to admit that the appropriate word is appropriate belies your bias.
Hmmmm. I wonder if a lot of people feel the same way (for the same reasons) about Rupert Murdoch.
Sure they do. On the left.
He's talked about all the damn time.
EDIT: And Murdoch is one of Hillary Clinton's biggest donors.
Oh, I know they hate him (I don't like the fellow either) but I wonder if they do so because he's Australian, is what I mean, as opposed to because he supports right-wing causes.
And no one is doing that. Keep strawmanning, though, maybe sooner or later some of that mud you're throwing will stick. People are curious that he doesn't feel guilt for collaborating with nazis against his fellows or trashing economies for profit.
And the response to this is that lots of people collaborated with Nazis against their fellows in the extremity of a survival situation. That they should feel their acts - despite being clearly evil acts, without the context of that survival imperative - are justified and therefore feel no guilt is not something that we, comfortable in our Nazi-free environment, are in any position to judge.
you were the one who got mad when I used "shame" instead of "guilt"
No I wasn't. I was annoyed that you misrepresented surprise/unease at a lack of guilt for a past choice, whether it was an easy one or not, as a statement that someone must live a life of shame for their actions.
1.
to work, one with another; cooperate, as on a literary work: They collaborated on a novel.
2.
to cooperate, usually willingly, with an enemy nation, esp. with an enemy occupying one's country: He collaborated with the Nazis during World War II.
If you're forced to do something or die/be shoved into horrible circumstances, that doesn't count as collaboration.
1.
to work, one with another; cooperate, as on a literary work: They collaborated on a novel.
2.
to cooperate, usually willingly, with an enemy nation, esp. with an enemy occupying one's country: He collaborated with the Nazis during World War II.
If you're forced to do something or die/be shoved into horrible circumstances, that doesn't count as collaboration.
Uh, yeah, it still does. notice the word 'usually.' Particularly appropriate for circumstances like this, when collaboration was a matter of putting yourself in a better position than your fellows even if it was still right shitty.
1.
to work, one with another; cooperate, as on a literary work: They collaborated on a novel.
2.
to cooperate, usually willingly, with an enemy nation, esp. with an enemy occupying one's country: He collaborated with the Nazis during World War II.
If you're forced to do something or die/be shoved into horrible circumstances, that doesn't count as collaboration.
Incidently, there is a word for that!
co·er·cion
1. the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance.
2. force or the power to use force in gaining compliance, as by a government or police force.
you know "appeal to logic" is also a fallacy, right?
insisting that a thing is a strawman doesn't make it one. nescientist ripped apart your argument right after you posted it (by pointing out that guilt and shame are the same thing). Ignoring him and repeating the word "strawman" enough times doesn't magically make you right.
Evander on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Oh, I know they hate him (I don't like the fellow either) but I wonder if they do so because he's Australian, is what I mean, as opposed to because he supports right-wing causes.
No, but the Left is generally far more tolerant of external influence in domestic politics. Nativist wharblegarble isn't generally a leftist platform, so it would be kind of counterintuitive to project their ire at Murdoch because of his nationality.
It's hard to be the party of amnesty and pro-immigration and then call out someone for being foreign.
Welp, I'm not gonna turn the thread into some silly piss-fight between myself and Evander (more than it already is, with more than a page of it.) Please feel free to continue whatever discussion you want to (beyond your next post) in PMs, Evander (or anyone else.)
Suffice it to say: I don't believe surviving the holocaust excuses you from questions of character any more than any other traumatic event. Most people who've done things like Soros in the second world war display some sort of remorse for it, whether they were coerced into such actions or not. I think it's completely valid to find a lack of guilt, particularly when such a lack of guilt is expressed several times in regards to different matters, troubling.
For the record, I don't actually have a problem with Soros. I hopped into the thread (other than my initial response to nstf mentioning Oskar Schindler) solely to point out that Evander was strawmanning, and I'm content that there are many, many examples of him continuing to do so, now.
And, no, Evander, though I shouldn't have to say it again (even nescientist didn't reply to it, so I assume concedes the point) there is a difference between thinking someone should live a life of shame and being surprised or worried that they express no regret whatsoever over an action, coerced or otherwise.
no one said that surviving the holocaust excuses questions of one's character
what was said is that to question one's character BECAUSE they survived the holocaust is disingenuous at best (hiding ulterior motives for attacking the man), and potentially monsterous.
But go on pretending that you are the victim here, while blaming other victims for not rolling over and dying.
You keep saying how worried you are that he expresses no regret for actions that occurred SEVENTY years ago, giving him ample time to have made his peace with them.
But go ahead, throw another tantrum about how you are done here and never coming back, and then come back a couple posts later.
No, I feel guilty about things I've done long ago but that doesn't mean I live in shame. As stated previously, there are a lot of degrees between feeling remorse about an action and living in perpetual shame.
KROFT: For example that, 'I'm Jewish and here I am, watching these people go. I could just as easily be there. I should be there.' None of that?
Mr. SOROS: Well, of course I c–I could be on the other side or I could be the one from whom the thing is being taken away. But there was no sense that I shouldn't be there, because that was – well, actually, in a funny way, it's just like in markets – that if I weren't there – of course, I wasn't doing it, but somebody else would would be taking it away anyhow. And it was the – whether I was there or not, I was only a spectator, the property was being taken away. So the – I had no role in taking away that property. So I had no sense of guilt.
I don't like Bush or Palin or the Iraq war either, but seriously: "If I didn't do it, someone else would have." WTF
You have NO IDEA what you are talking about here.
Plenty of Jews were forced to do horrible things to live. Insisting that they live in shame is HORRIBLE, and only serves to further the damage done by Hitler and his Nazis.
Eh, half of my family (dads side) was pretty much whipped out. Only three survivors. My dad survived 3 camps.
Knowing what he went through explains a lot, it doesn't excuse it, but it explains it.
You understand, then that assisting in confiscation of property meant that he actually got off pretty easy compared to what some of our family members were forced to do.
This has NOTHING to do with his activities post war, and the fact that it gets used as an attack on him honestly belies a very scary anti-semitism out there amongst the conservatives, wherein Jews are a novelty where some are to be kept as court jews, while the rest are to be disdained.
Completely. Personal story, but I guess applicable to this thread. My dad is in his 80's now, he's Hungarian. He came home and his entire family had been carted off and he got caught by the Nazi's. He went to Aushwitz, Berknow, and Drakow. Survived all of them. Mainly by making sure he worked the ovens since the labor was easier there and making eagles out of soap and tar for the Nazi's.
Three members survived, all of them evidently did various things to save their hides. One is in Israel, the other died about a decade ago.
My dad has a personal war with the holocaust museum, mainly because several of the pictures he had were far to "graphic" to be displayed, and having seen them and seen what's there, that place looks like Disney theme park.
So you don't have to lecture me about what people had to do, nor do you have to lecture me about what is, and isn't, a fair attack. Completely on the other hand, Soros sorry fate has been used shied him from valid attacks.
There is nothing valid about comparing him to a supporter of Hitler, and you damn well know it. You know it better than most of the folks in this thread.
Shall we move beyond this, though? I want to hear a greater explaination from you about why a man who has done ill in the past should not be allowed to do good in the present. WHy is it better for charities to refuse his money, rather than to let some good finally come of it?
Doing good things doesn't absolve you of past crimes.
Furthermore, anybody trying to fix problems taking cash from past crimes and then claiming to use them to solve current ones is at best a hypocrite of the highest level. They should all be shunned and tossed out like yesterdays trash.
If Soros touched it, destroy it. If you don't, you actively promote crime.
KROFT: For example that, 'I'm Jewish and here I am, watching these people go. I could just as easily be there. I should be there.' None of that?
Mr. SOROS: Well, of course I c–I could be on the other side or I could be the one from whom the thing is being taken away. But there was no sense that I shouldn't be there, because that was – well, actually, in a funny way, it's just like in markets – that if I weren't there – of course, I wasn't doing it, but somebody else would would be taking it away anyhow. And it was the – whether I was there or not, I was only a spectator, the property was being taken away. So the – I had no role in taking away that property. So I had no sense of guilt.
I don't like Bush or Palin or the Iraq war either, but seriously: "If I didn't do it, someone else would have." WTF
You have NO IDEA what you are talking about here.
Plenty of Jews were forced to do horrible things to live. Insisting that they live in shame is HORRIBLE, and only serves to further the damage done by Hitler and his Nazis.
Eh, half of my family (dads side) was pretty much whipped out. Only three survivors. My dad survived 3 camps.
Knowing what he went through explains a lot, it doesn't excuse it, but it explains it.
You understand, then that assisting in confiscation of property meant that he actually got off pretty easy compared to what some of our family members were forced to do.
This has NOTHING to do with his activities post war, and the fact that it gets used as an attack on him honestly belies a very scary anti-semitism out there amongst the conservatives, wherein Jews are a novelty where some are to be kept as court jews, while the rest are to be disdained.
Completely. Personal story, but I guess applicable to this thread. My dad is in his 80's now, he's Hungarian. He came home and his entire family had been carted off and he got caught by the Nazi's. He went to Aushwitz, Berknow, and Drakow. Survived all of them. Mainly by making sure he worked the ovens since the labor was easier there and making eagles out of soap and tar for the Nazi's.
Three members survived, all of them evidently did various things to save their hides. One is in Israel, the other died about a decade ago.
My dad has a personal war with the holocaust museum, mainly because several of the pictures he had were far to "graphic" to be displayed, and having seen them and seen what's there, that place looks like Disney theme park.
So you don't have to lecture me about what people had to do, nor do you have to lecture me about what is, and isn't, a fair attack. Completely on the other hand, Soros sorry fate has been used shied him from valid attacks.
There is nothing valid about comparing him to a supporter of Hitler, and you damn well know it. You know it better than most of the folks in this thread.
Shall we move beyond this, though? I want to hear a greater explaination from you about why a man who has done ill in the past should not be allowed to do good in the present. WHy is it better for charities to refuse his money, rather than to let some good finally come of it?
Doing good things doesn't absolve you of past crimes.
Furthermore, anybody trying to fix problems taking cash from past crimes and then claiming to use them to solve current ones is at best a hypocrite of the highest level. They should all be shunned and tossed out like yesterdays trash.
If Soros touched it, destroy it. If you don't, you actively promote crime.
As the saying goes, "even from ill intentions, some good may come"
Why destroy it when you can reclaim it? UNless your claim is that SOros earned the money SO THAT he could donate it (he didn't, it's pretty clear that he earned the money so that HE could have money), then excepting a couple hundred thousand dollars from a BILLIONAIRE does not encourage anything.
Evander, nope, since I've never said guilt and shame aren't synonymous. But hey, go ahead and quote where I did, cause you've proven so good at accurately representing someone's opinion in this thread.
Will it make you feel better if I say:
As stated previously, there are a lot of degrees between feeling shame about an action and living in perpetual shame.
KROFT: For example that, 'I'm Jewish and here I am, watching these people go. I could just as easily be there. I should be there.' None of that?
Mr. SOROS: Well, of course I c–I could be on the other side or I could be the one from whom the thing is being taken away. But there was no sense that I shouldn't be there, because that was – well, actually, in a funny way, it's just like in markets – that if I weren't there – of course, I wasn't doing it, but somebody else would would be taking it away anyhow. And it was the – whether I was there or not, I was only a spectator, the property was being taken away. So the – I had no role in taking away that property. So I had no sense of guilt.
I don't like Bush or Palin or the Iraq war either, but seriously: "If I didn't do it, someone else would have." WTF
You have NO IDEA what you are talking about here.
Plenty of Jews were forced to do horrible things to live. Insisting that they live in shame is HORRIBLE, and only serves to further the damage done by Hitler and his Nazis.
Eh, half of my family (dads side) was pretty much whipped out. Only three survivors. My dad survived 3 camps.
Knowing what he went through explains a lot, it doesn't excuse it, but it explains it.
You understand, then that assisting in confiscation of property meant that he actually got off pretty easy compared to what some of our family members were forced to do.
This has NOTHING to do with his activities post war, and the fact that it gets used as an attack on him honestly belies a very scary anti-semitism out there amongst the conservatives, wherein Jews are a novelty where some are to be kept as court jews, while the rest are to be disdained.
Completely. Personal story, but I guess applicable to this thread. My dad is in his 80's now, he's Hungarian. He came home and his entire family had been carted off and he got caught by the Nazi's. He went to Aushwitz, Berknow, and Drakow. Survived all of them. Mainly by making sure he worked the ovens since the labor was easier there and making eagles out of soap and tar for the Nazi's.
Three members survived, all of them evidently did various things to save their hides. One is in Israel, the other died about a decade ago.
My dad has a personal war with the holocaust museum, mainly because several of the pictures he had were far to "graphic" to be displayed, and having seen them and seen what's there, that place looks like Disney theme park.
So you don't have to lecture me about what people had to do, nor do you have to lecture me about what is, and isn't, a fair attack. Completely on the other hand, Soros sorry fate has been used shied him from valid attacks.
There is nothing valid about comparing him to a supporter of Hitler, and you damn well know it. You know it better than most of the folks in this thread.
Shall we move beyond this, though? I want to hear a greater explaination from you about why a man who has done ill in the past should not be allowed to do good in the present. WHy is it better for charities to refuse his money, rather than to let some good finally come of it?
Doing good things doesn't absolve you of past crimes.
Furthermore, anybody trying to fix problems taking cash from past crimes and then claiming to use them to solve current ones is at best a hypocrite of the highest level. They should all be shunned and tossed out like yesterdays trash.
If Soros touched it, destroy it. If you don't, you actively promote crime.
As the saying goes, "even from ill intentions, some good may come"
Why destroy it when you can reclaim it? UNless your claim is that SOros earned the money SO THAT he could donate it (he didn't, it's pretty clear that he earned the money so that HE could have money), then excepting a couple hundred thousand dollars from a BILLIONAIRE does not encourage anything.
It proves the fact that even if you try to take down national banks, and are one of the biggest jackasses alive, all will be forgiven, all is OK, as long as you march to the liberal trumpet.
Brown shirts on, salut smartly now boys, we've got some issue to attend to. All will be forgiven, for the greater good and ultimate cause.
Go progressives!
nstf on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited September 2010
Seriously, you're going to explicitly Godwin a Holocaust survivor? Also, Soros is not "one of the biggest jackasses alive", he's just a regular billionaire business jackass.
Edit: Yes, I know it's nstf. This is egregious, however.
Evander, nope, since I've never said guilt and shame aren't synonymous. But hey, go ahead and quote where I did, cause you've proven so good at accurately representing someone's opinion in this thread.
Will it make you feel better if I say:
As stated previously, there are a lot of degrees between feeling shame about an action and living in perpetual shame.
?
Twice now you have misrepresented the degree of Evander's "living in shame" comment, once as "living a life of shame" and now as "living in perpetual shame." If it was a strawman when he did it it's a strawman when you're doing it.
Seriously, you're going to explicitly Godwin a Holocaust survivor? Also, Soros is not "one of the biggest jackasses alive", he's just a regular billionaire business jackass.
I godwin'd the progressive party, because they are that bad. I have two living family members on my dads side, all survived the holocaust. So I'll play to the progressive logic of "if it's part of you, it's ok and PC" and claim victory, since that's the going logic there. And that you can't call godwin on me, because you know, by birth, I happen to be a jew.
nstf on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited September 2010
Wow. This will be the first time I actually used the ignore button. I promised myself that I would never use it, but seriously...
Posts
And the response to this is that lots of people collaborated with Nazis against their fellows in the extremity of a survival situation. That they should feel their acts - despite being clearly evil acts, without the context of that survival imperative - are justified and therefore feel no guilt is not something that we, comfortable in our Nazi-free environment, are in any position to judge.
Sure they do. On the left.
He's talked about all the damn time.
EDIT: And Murdoch is one of Hillary Clinton's biggest donors.
1.
to work, one with another; cooperate, as on a literary work: They collaborated on a novel.
2.
to cooperate, usually willingly, with an enemy nation, esp. with an enemy occupying one's country: He collaborated with the Nazis during World War II.
That you think I have an agenda and are unwilling to admit that the appropriate word is appropriate belies your bias.
Oh, I know they hate him (I don't like the fellow either) but I wonder if they do so because he's Australian, is what I mean, as opposed to because he supports right-wing causes.
Oh sorry my bad free pass. Carry on, thread.
you've posted the denotation of the word, but you are pretending the conotation doesn't exist, which is goosery
No I wasn't. I was annoyed that you misrepresented surprise/unease at a lack of guilt for a past choice, whether it was an easy one or not, as a statement that someone must live a life of shame for their actions.
that is accusation, not unease
No, I didn't.
Do you ever stop strawmanning? It's like I'm arguing with a little kid here.
Okay, Glenn Beck. You didn't accuse him, you just suggested that some one ELSE might connect the dots.
Uh, yeah, it still does. notice the word 'usually.' Particularly appropriate for circumstances like this, when collaboration was a matter of putting yourself in a better position than your fellows even if it was still right shitty.
there you go again, acting as though refusing and being murdered was a valid alternative for Soros to take.
Okay, kiddo. I'm content to let my posts stand for myself.
Incidently, there is a word for that!
co·er·cion
1. the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance.
2. force or the power to use force in gaining compliance, as by a government or police force.
your posts stand for blaming the victim, so if that is what you stand for too, then sure
insisting that a thing is a strawman doesn't make it one. nescientist ripped apart your argument right after you posted it (by pointing out that guilt and shame are the same thing). Ignoring him and repeating the word "strawman" enough times doesn't magically make you right.
No, but the Left is generally far more tolerant of external influence in domestic politics. Nativist wharblegarble isn't generally a leftist platform, so it would be kind of counterintuitive to project their ire at Murdoch because of his nationality.
It's hard to be the party of amnesty and pro-immigration and then call out someone for being foreign.
Suffice it to say: I don't believe surviving the holocaust excuses you from questions of character any more than any other traumatic event. Most people who've done things like Soros in the second world war display some sort of remorse for it, whether they were coerced into such actions or not. I think it's completely valid to find a lack of guilt, particularly when such a lack of guilt is expressed several times in regards to different matters, troubling.
For the record, I don't actually have a problem with Soros. I hopped into the thread (other than my initial response to nstf mentioning Oskar Schindler) solely to point out that Evander was strawmanning, and I'm content that there are many, many examples of him continuing to do so, now.
And, no, Evander, though I shouldn't have to say it again (even nescientist didn't reply to it, so I assume concedes the point) there is a difference between thinking someone should live a life of shame and being surprised or worried that they express no regret whatsoever over an action, coerced or otherwise.
edit: Atomic Ross, good point.
what was said is that to question one's character BECAUSE they survived the holocaust is disingenuous at best (hiding ulterior motives for attacking the man), and potentially monsterous.
But go on pretending that you are the victim here, while blaming other victims for not rolling over and dying.
Quote where I did that.
Quit with the strawman arguments.
edit:
Hell, quote where I did this, too.
Hey, Magneto survived the Holocaust, and he's a total asshole.
Let's put that question to rest.
You keep saying how worried you are that he expresses no regret for actions that occurred SEVENTY years ago, giving him ample time to have made his peace with them.
But go ahead, throw another tantrum about how you are done here and never coming back, and then come back a couple posts later.
Well, most of the time you are.
If he feels guilty about something he did a very long time ago, he's living in shame.
Doing good things doesn't absolve you of past crimes.
Furthermore, anybody trying to fix problems taking cash from past crimes and then claiming to use them to solve current ones is at best a hypocrite of the highest level. They should all be shunned and tossed out like yesterdays trash.
If Soros touched it, destroy it. If you don't, you actively promote crime.
I mean, you are a fan of definitions, right?
As the saying goes, "even from ill intentions, some good may come"
Why destroy it when you can reclaim it? UNless your claim is that SOros earned the money SO THAT he could donate it (he didn't, it's pretty clear that he earned the money so that HE could have money), then excepting a couple hundred thousand dollars from a BILLIONAIRE does not encourage anything.
Will it make you feel better if I say:
As stated previously, there are a lot of degrees between feeling shame about an action and living in perpetual shame.
?
It proves the fact that even if you try to take down national banks, and are one of the biggest jackasses alive, all will be forgiven, all is OK, as long as you march to the liberal trumpet.
Brown shirts on, salut smartly now boys, we've got some issue to attend to. All will be forgiven, for the greater good and ultimate cause.
Go progressives!
Edit: Yes, I know it's nstf. This is egregious, however.
Twice now you have misrepresented the degree of Evander's "living in shame" comment, once as "living a life of shame" and now as "living in perpetual shame." If it was a strawman when he did it it's a strawman when you're doing it.
I godwin'd the progressive party, because they are that bad. I have two living family members on my dads side, all survived the holocaust. So I'll play to the progressive logic of "if it's part of you, it's ok and PC" and claim victory, since that's the going logic there. And that you can't call godwin on me, because you know, by birth, I happen to be a jew.