The Holocaust was Wrong

[Par5]

I was sharing Paul's own words on the matter for your consideration. What ammo can withstand the truth? If you think it can, fire away.

What truth are you talking about?

 

[Dave L]

What truth are you talking about?

What truth is there?

 

[Par5]

What truth is there?

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

 

[Dave L]

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

sayonara. Over and out........

 

[Robban]

Truth is repugnant to many. Look at the mess the world is in because of lies.

Yes, the world is in a mess , though it may be a form of judgement, like;

"Do not judge".
For as we judge so we ourselves will be judged,
already in the here and now.

It is like it has to be spelt out to us.

There are those, countries or leaders who want to ban face coverings, now the same ones make it law to wear face covering.

"Go out from them",
Now if one is allowed to go out, keep six feet apart.

The "Farisees" handwahing.
Now, it is highly recommended.

I do not know to laugh or cry.

But it is all part of this worlds falseness.

 

[Par5]

sayonara. Over and out........

And slán to you too!

 

[The happy Objectivist]

In this thread I am going to argue for the thesis that the Holocaust was wrong.

It feels odd to need to make this thread. I think the overwhelming majority here agree with me: The Holocaust was wrong. Case closed.

Nevertheless, in another thread where I mentioned that Hitler was wrong, another member insisted that I needed to make the case to support my claim. Why? Don't we all just agree that what he did was wrong? For some reason, this member insisted that I needed to make the case.

In this thread I will limit my argument to the Holocaust. If I can show that the Holocaust was wrong, then I think I have made the case that Hitler was wrong.

The Holocaust was wrong. Six million Jews lost their lives. Imagine that. They were ordinary people going about their lives. Their lives were ended prematurely. All their hopes and dreams and ambitions were gone. Who among us would want to live in a world where something like this is considered normal? Who among us would want to live in a world where rulers could snuff out our lives simply because they wanted to?

Not only were they killed, but they suffered horribly. They were put into concentration camps where they were starved. This caused immense suffering. Again, who among us would want to live in a world where rulers could do this to people?

And think of all their loved ones who never got to enjoy life with their friends and relatives that were killed. Think of all those who had depended on their relatives, and now had to go though life without their loved ones that were locked up or killed. Again, who would want to live in a world where something like this is normal?

So based on these reasons, I conclude that the Holocaust was harmful to people. I would never want to live in a world where humans were treated that way. It is my hope that none of us ever see anything as horrible as the Holocaust.

It's hard to believe anyone would need to argue what is so blatantly a violation of individual rights. But in case anyone needed an argument, it's a blatant violation of individual rights, therefore it was wrong. Excluding natural disasters, just take a look at any period in time where there were war, suffering and destruction and you will find at its root, violation of individual rights.

 

[grasping the after wind]

In this thread I am going to argue for the thesis that the Holocaust was wrong.

It feels odd to need to make this thread. I think the overwhelming majority here agree with me: The Holocaust was wrong. Case closed.

Nevertheless, in another thread where I mentioned that Hitler was wrong, another member insisted that I needed to make the case to support my claim. Why? Don't we all just agree that what he did was wrong? For some reason, this member insisted that I needed to make the case.

In this thread I will limit my argument to the Holocaust. If I can show that the Holocaust was wrong, then I think I have made the case that Hitler was wrong.

The Holocaust was wrong. Six million Jews lost their lives. Imagine that. They were ordinary people going about their lives. Their lives were ended prematurely. All their hopes and dreams and ambitions were gone. Who among us would want to live in a world where something like this is considered normal? Who among us would want to live in a world where rulers could snuff out our lives simply because they wanted to?

Not only were they killed, but they suffered horribly. They were put into concentration camps where they were starved. This caused immense suffering. Again, who among us would want to live in a world where rulers could do this to people?

And think of all their loved ones who never got to enjoy life with their friends and relatives that were killed. Think of all those who had depended on their relatives, and now had to go though life without their loved ones that were locked up or killed. Again, who would want to live in a world where something like this is normal?

So based on these reasons, I conclude that the Holocaust was harmful to people. I would never want to live in a world where humans were treated that way. It is my hope that none of us ever see anything as horrible as the Holocaust.

Your case seems to be
Wrong= I don't like it.

I agree the Holocaust was wrong and evil and very bad. To make a case against something though, I cannot just tell people about my negative feeling toward something . I need to start with some assumptions about what makes something good and what makes something bad. Our assumptions should be self evident to most people. There will always be people that challenge our basic assumptions and as Socrates pointed out, via Plato, if we do not agree on those basic assumptions we will not be able to convince each other of anything using reason. Much of what you stated would be included in the case but you haven't laid the groundwork by establishing a standard of what would make something wrong in this case. . To prove Hitler was wrong to have initiated a holocaust one only needs to embrace one or more of the following assumptions. All life is precious , No group is inferior to another, Inequality of outcomes does not mean that some group must be oppressing another group or the outcomes would be equal. On all three assumptions, Hitler would disagree but we aren't trying to convince Hitler he was wrong. We are establishing a reasonable argument to prove to reasonable people, who should mostly share at least one of our assumptions, that Hitler was wrong.

 

[muichimotsu]

What answer would you like to hear?

I don't pretend I have the absolute answer, you're copping a passive aggressive attitude like you're the victim somehow and projecting back onto me as if I'm the aggressor at all.

I want to hear an answer that's at least thought out and isn't based purely on your dogmatic convictions or beliefs, but having the humility to open your beliefs up to criticism and falsification

 

[muichimotsu]

God only opens the eyes of a few in contrast to the many who cannot grasp spiritual truth.

Ah, so you have special knowledge, but can't demonstrate how, you just do? That's awfully convenient

 

[muichimotsu]

People are spiritually blind who cannot discern Christ.

More assertions without substantiation, the sign of someone who doesn't want to think, but just demand people conform, doing so in a way that's also passive aggressive like they're not victimizing, they're just "warning", not "threatening"

 

[Dave L]

More assertions without substantiation, the sign of someone who doesn't want to think, but just demand people conform, doing so in a way that's also passive aggressive like they're not victimizing, they're just "warning", not "threatening"

Would not all believe in Christ if you are right?

 

[Dave L]

Ah, so you have special knowledge, but can't demonstrate how, you just do? That's awfully convenient

“Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” John 3:3 (KJV 1900)

 

[Dave L]

I don't pretend I have the absolute answer, you're copping a passive aggressive attitude like you're the victim somehow and projecting back onto me as if I'm the aggressor at all.

I want to hear an answer that's at least thought out and isn't based purely on your dogmatic convictions or beliefs, but having the humility to open your beliefs up to criticism and falsification

What if you don't like what you hear?

 

[Dave L]

It's hard to believe anyone would need to argue what is so blatantly a violation of individual rights. But in case anyone needed an argument, it's a blatant violation of individual rights, therefore it was wrong. Excluding natural disasters, just take a look at any period in time where there were war, suffering and destruction and you will find at its root, violation of individual rights.

war and human-engineered suffering only prove how rotten the human race is.

 

[Moral Orel]

Nevertheless, in another thread where I mentioned that Hitler was wrong, another member insisted that I needed to make the case to support my claim. Why? Don't we all just agree that what he did was wrong? For some reason, this member insisted that I needed to make the case.

Sounds like you got slapped in the face with a red herring! Let me guess, you were arguing about something related to the problem of evil and why a loving god would let someone like Hitler do what he did. Then the theist asked you to defend why you think things are wrong. Smack! Red herring! It's a pretty common trope that theists like to roll out when you start talking about the evils of things like genocide, slavery, and rape that God commands in the Bible.

You're right that why you think something is wrong isn't pertinent to the discussion if you both agree it's wrong; that's the starting point. It would be akin to agreeing that God can't be good and evil and them asking you to justify the law of non-contradiction. It's all an attempt to shift things around and put you on the defensive and forget about the actual conversation. What I like to do is just re-frame things around the Bible's definition of good and evil and make it an argument about the Christian God being contradictory. Then it doesn't matter whether what I think about the Holocaust at all and we can stay on topic.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Want to respond to the OP who has as his religion 'humanist.' This is not my actual position on things but merely where I see things in a purely humanist or naturalist perspective, if we're not going to appeal to any metaphysical reality. I think the Nazi slaughter of various peoples, Jews, Poles and Gypsies were war crimes deserving of the death penalty.

Why should you conclude based on someone's preference to live that therefore they should have? Or that it was a moral wrong that the holocaust to have happened? That is on humanism, why is sufferings an actual problem? Why is being happy an actual good? Seems to me it's just a state of nature onto which we can attribute no moral worth one way or the other. You could for instance compare humans to any other kind of animal. All those Salmon killed by bears as they swim upstream. It's not tragic, it's just the state of natural affairs in this world. Those lion cubs killed by a rival male lion, just nature doing it's course. Nazis slaughtering various peoples (Jews, Poles, Gypsies, Russians), it's just man being man or being his nature, like any other animal. There's no good or evil in the action, it simply is the way of things.

 

[muichimotsu]

Want to respond to the OP who has as his religion 'humanist.' This is not my actual position on things but merely where I see things in a purely humanist or naturalist perspective, if we're not going to appeal to any metaphysical reality. I think the Nazi slaughter of various peoples, Jews, Poles and Gypsies were war crimes deserving of the death penalty.

Why should you conclude based on someone's preference to live that therefore they should have? Or that it was a moral wrong that the holocaust to have happened? That is on humanism, why is sufferings an actual problem? Why is being happy an actual good? Seems to me it's just a state of nature onto which we can attribute no moral worth one way or the other. You could for instance compare humans to any other kind of animal. All those Salmon killed by bears as they swim upstream. It's not tragic, it's just the state of natural affairs in this world. Those lion cubs killed by a rival male lion, just nature doing it's course. Nazis slaughtering various peoples (Jews, Poles, Gypsies, Russians), it's just man being man or being his nature, like any other animal. There's no good or evil in the action, it simply is the way of things.

Already, there's a big problem in conflating humanism and naturalism, even methodologically for the latter. There's a basic fallacy called appeal to nature which is what you're basically applying to humanists as if we just see morality in terms of nature when that's a generalization and arguably inaccurate anyway

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Already, there's a big problem in conflating humanism and naturalism, even methodologically for the latter. There's a basic fallacy called appeal to nature which is what you're basically applying to humanists as if we just see morality in terms of nature when that's a generalization and arguably inaccurate anyway

That's why I qualified my response of being to the type of humanist who accepts naturalism as a premise. Which I assume most humanists today would be. You don't find many people of religious orientation claiming to be humanists these days. Maybe back in the 16th century, but not today.

 

[muichimotsu]

That's why I qualified my response of being to the type of humanist who accepts naturalism as a premise. Which I assume most humanists today would be. You don't find many people of religious orientation claiming to be humanists these days. Maybe back in the 16th century, but not today.

Which kind of naturalism? Metaphysical naturalism is a bit more ambitious of a claim versus methodological naturalism, which doesn't just leave the investigation open to something that might as well not exist, since it isn't remotely investigable in the first place by its own properties ascribed by believers, particularly the "transcendent" part

Humanism is also a term requiring qualification, because there are religious humanists, even if they may be smaller in number, so you need to qualify that you mean secular humanists, even if the distinction feels unnecessary. If you care about precision in your words, worrying about being verbose is contrary to that if it means you have to emphasize brevity over accuracy