[finally17]

To ask which of these is greater, either in the face of tragedy or separated from it by a month or a decade or a century, is to lessen the atrocities that you deem less great. They were not any less great to those who suffered them.

To assign blame for the greatest sin to this group and not that is almost an absolution. I don't want to give any one or group with murderous or genocidal intent grounds to say such as "We were not as bad as Hitler, the evil bastard. He was real evil, we are just the diet coke of evil."

If you can boil it down to a question of numbers (which is greater is a question of numbers), you're missing the point. It's not a question of individual or group, great or small; either human life is sacrosanct or not, there is no in between.

I abstain as well, but I am curious where the term "century of ingress" came from? It sounds like some apologist's attempt to demonstrate ideas I don't agree with at all, that the 20th century achieved some level of murderous hate that mankind had, in other centuries, failed to achieve.

It's not that we've gotten more hateful, or that groups persecuted in the 20th century were somehow more despised than those trod upon in the preceding generations. If anything I would argue that it's the other way around (but this is not either a debate I want to have). No, it's not that hate has increased, it's just that increased populations, population densities, and an improved machinery of war have allowed us to be vastly more efficient at our hatreds than our forerunners were capable of.

[skjaeran]

finally17, on Feb 2 2008, 01:52 PM, said:

To ask which of these is greater, either in the face of tragedy or separated from it by a month or a decade or a century, is to lessen the atrocities that you deem less great. They were not any less great to those who suffered them.

To assign blame for the greatest sin to this group and not that is almost an absolution. I don't want to give any one or group with murderous or genocidal intent grounds to say such as "We were not as bad as Hitler, the evil bastard. He was real evil, we are just the diet coke of evil."

If you can boil it down to a question of numbers (which is greater is a question of numbers), you're missing the point. It's not a question of individual or group, great or small; either human life is sacrosanct or not, there is no in between.

I abstain as well, but I am curious where the term "century of ingress" came from? It sounds like some apologist's attempt to demonstrate ideas I don't agree with at all, that the 20th century achieved some level of murderous hate that mankind had, in other centuries, failed to achieve.

It's not that we've gotten more hateful, or that groups persecuted in the 20th century were somehow more despised than those trod upon in the preceding generations. If anything I would argue that it's the other way around (but this is not either a debate I want to have). No, it's not that hate has increased, it's just that increased populations, population densities, and an improved machinery of war have allowed us to be vastly more efficient at our hatreds than our forerunners were capable of.

Well said!

[helene_t]

finally17, on Feb 2 2008, 02:52 PM, said:

It's not that we've gotten more hateful, or that groups persecuted in the 20th century were somehow more despised than those trod upon in the preceding generations.  If anything I would argue that it's the other way around (but this is not either a debate I want to have).  No, it's not that hate has increased, it's just that increased populations, population densities, and an improved machinery of war have allowed us to be vastly more efficient at our hatreds than our forerunners were capable of.

Absolutely agree. Europeans would have used nukes or mustard gas against the Zulus, the Moors and the Incas if those technologies had been available.

Nevertheless I think the 21st century will see less crimes against humanity than did the 20th. The idea that human rights extend to people with other skin colors has become quite popular, some even extent them to people with other religions.Besides, as our economy has become more based on labor and information and less based on natural resources, genocide makes less economical sense than it used to.

[Fluffy]

sceptic, on Feb 1 2008, 04:33 PM, said:

How many civilizations did the spanish destroy( this may predate but the point is the same)

Lol, they teach us that this is just propaganda from England and France you know?


Anyway Al_U_Card, why didn't you even mention the jews? didn't anything happen in europe on the first half on the century?

[Al_U_Card]

finally17, on Feb 2 2008, 07:52 AM, said:

I abstain as well, but I am curious where the term "century of ingress" came from?  It sounds like some apologist's attempt to demonstrate ideas I don't agree with at all, that the 20th century achieved some level of murderous hate that mankind had, in other centuries, failed to achieve.

I am guilty of the "coining" of the term but it was intended to refer to the practice of looking inwards that developed during the last century. Introspection, self-loathing, ego-centricity, me generation etc.

I can appreciate the desire to abstain, but my preference would be to know and understand YOUR choice (on the list or not).

I made a more or less random list but was pissed with not having included the A-bombs as they were very heinous. (There was a 20 max limit btw)

As previously mentioned, "Why can't we get along?" Mostly because we refuse and fail to walk a mile in the other man's shoes.

[Winstonm]

I have a more generalized view of this consideration. While it is true that murder is an awful act, it is often commited emotionally and spontaneously; however, governments cannot use that alibi - governmental use of its state-sponsored powers in a calculated and cold-blooded destruction of liberty, whether the ultimate destuction of death or the partial destruction of long-term confinement, is the most heinous of crimes.

[Al_U_Card]

Fluffy, on Feb 2 2008, 08:40 AM, said:

sceptic, on Feb 1 2008, 04:33 PM, said:

How many civilizations did the spanish destroy( this may predate but the point is the same)

Lol, they teach us that this is just propaganda from England and France you know?


Anyway Al_U_Card, why didn't you even mention the jews? didn't anything happen in europe on the first half on the century?

Genocide is a distorted part of the survival imperative. The church destroyed the heretical Mayan and Incan cultural records, Hitler eviscerated the jewish communities to help fund his war machine etc. etc. I couldn't (sadly) possibly fit all of the atrocities on the list....

[pclayton]

Holocaust, Pol Pot, and Rwanda.

Darfur continues...

[rbforster]

Gerben42, on Feb 2 2008, 04:25 AM, said:

"If you kill one man, it is murder. If you kill a million, it's a statistic."

Regarding that quote, I'd heard a slightly different version:

"Kill one man, they call you a murderer. Kill a million, they call you a conqueror. Kill them all and call yourself a god."

A similarly dim view on both men and gods. The origin seems to be Jean Rostand.

[skjaeran]

sceptic, on Feb 2 2008, 06:19 PM, said:

Al, can you use smaller words or words with only two sylables so I can understand what the heck you are talking about

What do you mean, understand? It's got more than 2 syllables.

[kenberg]

Al, I see you ask for our choice and our reason. My choice is to abstain but I can give you my reason for that, at lest more or less.


Crimes come in different categories and I am not sure it is sensible to try to compare them. Even within a category, say murder by the state, how to choose. I suppose that I could reasonably argue that Hitler was more of a monster than Stalin. Stalin caused the death of an enormous number of people but as far as I know, he did it in pursuit of power and so if you kept your head down you maybe had a chance of surviving. If you were Jewish in Nazi Germany, no such option was available to you. But then, is that really the right criterion? I wouldn't really be impressed as a juror where the accused asked for mercy because he only killed for power, not for the fun of it like other people did.

But, beyond such difficulties, I agree with some earlier comments that it really seems somehow wrong to try to make a ranking of this sort. We rank the best dressed or the worst dressed or the richest etc. I guess someone ranks congressman by stupidity. But most monstrous? I sit here, safe and comfortable, discussing whether Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot committed the worst crime. I visualize a Holocaust survivor seeing that their suffering didn't make the cut. I think I'll take a pass on this. And continue to take a pass if you add in the Holocaust.

[Al_U_Card]

I will defer (only 2 syllables but since syllable has more than 2 then I will use the word "parts" ) to Wayne here.

My point is just to show that no matter the degree, we are all guilty of evil. We are the source of the problem so we must be able to solve it. We must resist evil at every turn. We cannot allow evil to exist and persist without fighting against it. If we don't then we are the most evil of all.

[luke warm]

sceptic, on Feb 2 2008, 04:20 PM, said:

Quote

We cannot allow evil to exist

Without evil, there is no good

you don't really believe that, do you?

[cherdano]

Al_U_Card, on Feb 2 2008, 10:04 AM, said:

Fluffy, on Feb 2 2008, 08:40 AM, said:

sceptic, on Feb 1 2008, 04:33 PM, said:

How many civilizations did the spanish destroy( this may predate but the point is the same)

Lol, they teach us that this is just propaganda from England and France you know?


Anyway Al_U_Card, why didn't you even mention the jews? didn't anything happen in europe on the first half on the century?

Genocide is a distorted part of the survival imperative. The church destroyed the heretical Mayan and Incan cultural records, Hitler eviscerated the jewish communities to help fund his war machine etc. etc. I couldn't (sadly) possibly fit all of the atrocities on the list....

It was bad enough to start this poll, bad enough to omit the Holocaust, but this explanation makes it even worse.

[luke warm]

sceptic, on Feb 3 2008, 01:13 AM, said:

Jimmy explain to me by eradicating evil, there will only be good in the world

oh i'm not arguing with you, wayne... i "know" (ie, believe) that to be true, myself... it just surprised me that you believe it... of cousre it's possible we aren't speaking of the same thing (dr. todd has a few good posts on this, iirc)... you see, most people posting here seem to be of the opinion there's no such thing as evil, in a morality sense, because there's no such thing as morality, in an objective sense

[Al_U_Card]

luke warm, on Feb 2 2008, 10:24 PM, said:

sceptic, on Feb 2 2008, 04:20 PM, said:

Quote

We cannot allow evil to exist

Without evil, there is no good

you don't really believe that, do you?

What we believe versus what we can do are two different things that are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

If evil is countered by goodness then it is not a stalemate, it is neutrality. Neutrality, like the absolute summation of everything, is nothing. Nothing includes everything so that the key is to acheive a state of neutrality so that you are able to do whatever is necessary because it is included in that initial state.

We humans are an experiment in existence. Not a failed experiment, yet.

[Winstonm]

Someone who has the training and understands the concept better that I do may want to comment - or clue me in to my imbecility - but it seems to me that good/evil is some form of Prisoner's Dilemma.

My (thinking?) goes like this:

Person 1 can:
A) Be evil
B) Be good

Person 2 can:
A) Be evil
B) Be good

The best rewards are for both to chose B; however, if either choses B, his counterpart can gain an advantage by chosing A; therefore, the default selection would be A/A.

Obviously, the basis for this form of the game is self-interest, or selfishness; the only way to alter the outcome is to change the basis from selfishness to selflessness.

[luke warm]

Al_U_Card, on Feb 3 2008, 09:38 AM, said:

luke warm, on Feb 2 2008, 10:24 PM, said:

sceptic, on Feb 2 2008, 04:20 PM, said:

Quote

We cannot allow evil to exist

Without evil, there is no good

you don't really believe that, do you?

What we believe versus what we can do are two different things that are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

If evil is countered by goodness then it is not a stalemate, it is neutrality. Neutrality, like the absolute summation of everything, is nothing. Nothing includes everything so that the key is to acheive a state of neutrality so that you are able to do whatever is necessary because it is included in that initial state.

We humans are an experiment in existence. Not a failed experiment, yet.

first of all i (and i assue wayne also) wasn't talking about balancing or countering evil with good... i was speaking to the existence of both/either, in an objective sense

Winstonm, on Feb 3 2008, 10:38 AM, said:

Someone who has the training and understands the concept better that I do may want to comment - or clue me in to my imbecility - but it seems to me that good/evil is some form of Prisoner's Dilemma.

My (thinking?) goes like this:

Person 1 can:
A) Be evil
Be good

Person 2 can:
A) Be evil
Be good

The best rewards are for both to chose B; however, if either choses B, his counterpart can gain an advantage by chosing A; therefore, the default selection would be A/A.

Obviously, the basis for this form of the game is self-interest, or selfishness; the only way to alter the outcome is to change the basis from selfishness to selflessness.

imo the 'rewards' are selfish regardless of the choice... why be good? why be other than good? how do you determine good vs. evil, what do you use to measure either by?

in the final analysis we all choose evil, it's just a matter of degree... it isn't about balancing imo, it's hard to say "well on balance so and so lived a good life"... after all, how many 'good' acts counter one evil act, or good thoughts or good intentions, etc

[Al_U_Card]

Balance is the key. Bush is creating quite a bit of "good" for Halliburton, Carlyle Group etc. etc. and quite a bit of evil for Iraq and its people. How about just giving some money to Halliburton to do some construction jobs in Iraq? No need for killing and strife and everyone is better off as balance is maintained. (We the taxpayers take the hit again, of course, but it is a small evil compared to the death and destruction that our malevolent friends in Washington are dishing out.)