With post 43, James closed the thread “Nazi sign stolen from Auschwitz gates” because the sign was recovered. There was an interesting (to me at least) discussion of ethics in progress there mainly between Quadraphonics and Norsefire, which I continue in this new thread. Here is a brief and very compressed review of how it developed:
In post 17, Norsefire asks: “Why is this sign so important” and get two very different answers:
(18) p-braine: “It's important for the same reason that preserving the entire concentration camp is important which is so that what happened there cannot be denied or forgotten.”
(19) SAM: “It’s the gift that keeps on giving” and she backs her POV with quote from Israel’s liberal newspaper, part of which is: “In addition to the one-time payment, {15,000€} the survivors are also entitled to a monthly allowance, which adds up to around 100 million Euros a year.”
(22)Norsefire: “I'm not necessarily saying it's not important, but it appears to be exceedingly convenient for the Jews, in my opinion.”
(I believe he is referring to benefits other than just the German government’s “guilt payments.”)
(23)James: “What is convenient? And why?”
(26)Quadraphonics: “It's "convenient" that people are reminded that millions of Jews were systematically eliminated?
Can one of the mods grow a pair of nuts and ban Norsefire, S.A.M. and Brian Foley now? This shit is degrading.”
I, Billy T, ask now: Would a Bedouin Memorial also be useful to remind people that Israel has annihilated a greater percentage of the desert Bedouins than Hitler did the Jews and occupied their lands without any payment? (Their old Ottoman deeds have no value in Israeli courts.) At least 200,000 Bedouins once roamed Sinai and Negev. Like Palestinians, many escaped / were driven / to other Arab land and ceased to be nomadic desert Bedouins. The few remaining in the desert are now confined in two or three concentration camps (called “enclosures” by Israel) on less than 2% of the Negev, where the soil is the poorest, so they are totally dependent upon Israel delivering food and water. Their extermination will be effectively completed in about one decade more as young Bedouin men can leave these enclosures to join the Israeli army. Thus the population of school age children at the largest of these enclosures will now fit in one school bus.
(27)Norsefire, answering James: “I am saying that, while the Holocaust was tragic, the Jews love to bring it up as an excuse for what they are doing in the 'Holy Land'. … Syrian Christians were genocided by the Turks in the early 20th; why doesn't anybody focus on that? … or what about the Gypsies and homosexuals? Why is it the Jews? Seems very convenient to me.”
(28) Norsefire, answering Quadraphonics: “How can you have a wonderful debate if you ban the other side?”
(29) Quadraphonics replying: “We aren't having a wonderful debate. We're being overrun by nasty racist ideologues who are obsessed with Jewish conspiracy theories.” Note this is the first name calling post.
(32) Norsefire, replying to Quad, who had defended his call (in 26) for banning by noting there were “endless reams of disgusting bigotry in support of such a recommendation” asks: “What is bigotry?”
(34)Quadraphonics: “A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices." This now bold definition is why I started this thread.
IMHO, James prematurely shut off discussion of this important ethical question (What is a bigot?).
I will use some of my own history as the tactical commander of the civil rights movement in Baltimore one summer:
By quad’s definition, I was a bigot as I obstinately and intolerantly held the very unpopular and disliked opinion that blacks should be allowed to sit down in restaurants serving whites. Furthermore, I was so dedicated to this politically incorrect and repulsive idea that I was willing to significantly destroy restaurants profits when I could.
The Civic Interest Group, already had several people in jail, and could not afford legal fees for more, so when the police arrived and ordered the integrated sit-ins groups to leave, we did and joined the picket line outside. Few would cross that line although some would spit on us. We did so much economic damage that after a couple of months, the Restaurant Association, switched positions and cut us a deal. They would use their influence with the Maryland State legislature to help get the “open to all” law passed and we eased off, at least on Sundays, when I estimated we cost each restaurant > $1,000 an hour in lost profits. On our best days, we effectively closed ~20 of Baltimore’s best restaurants. (And I believe generally reduced the number of people eating at resturants as no one knew where or when we would stike.)
SUMMARY: I refute Quadraphonic’s POV, and his quoted definition of a bigot. For me a bigot is one who attacks (even just verbally) another (or group) because of some characteristic or behavior over which they have no control. Such as being very short, stuttering, having black skin, being of another racial group, being homosexual, being physically deformed, etc.
Fortunately down thru history there have been enough of “Quad’s bigots” - obstinate and intolerant (non-compromising in their position) minority members to abolish slavery, debtor’s prisons, burning of witches or books, open restaurants to blacks, and at least limit the persecution of homosexuals, (In many places, more work is still needed here.) etc.
The main ethically question for me when you hold an unpopular minority POV obstinately and will not compromise it (intolerantly) is what right, if any, do you have to injure others opposing your POV?
I thought about that a lot while walking the picket lines or sitting at a restaurant table waiting for the police to arrive. My conclusion was that if you intentional, and obstinately break the law (or merely publicly confront the prevailing POV) then you must be willing to take the penalty the law imposes (or social rejection, e.g. be spit upon); however, any retribution for your acts must be non-permanent (no cutting off of your hands, etc.) and not more shocking to society than your behavior, which earned the punishment (e.g. no torture for supporting the right to pray to any God, or demanding return of democratic government under military dictatorships a cold -war era US helped to create in South America, etc.).
The questions for discussion in this thread are:
(1) Do you have the right to injure others to advance your obstinate uncompromising minority POV?
(2) If sometimes, “Yes” how is that right limited? (E.g. is never permitted to injure another person but OK to injure a corporation? For example, many years ago a boycott of Nestle was organized and eventually forced them to stop giving two cases of baby milk to African mothers of new born babies as they left the hospital. –Two case will dry up their breast milk and if at a hospital, they probably could afford to buy more. Nestle also falsely and knowingly gave the mothers literature indicating canned milk was better for the baby and bottles were the “modern way to nurse a baby.”)
(3) Under what circumstances, can you break the law (or society’s accepted behavior) and also try to escape from any punishment for doing so?
(4) Any other ethical questions associated with publically supporting your obstinate uncompromising, unpopular , minority POV.
In post 17, Norsefire asks: “Why is this sign so important” and get two very different answers:
(18) p-braine: “It's important for the same reason that preserving the entire concentration camp is important which is so that what happened there cannot be denied or forgotten.”
(19) SAM: “It’s the gift that keeps on giving” and she backs her POV with quote from Israel’s liberal newspaper, part of which is: “In addition to the one-time payment, {15,000€} the survivors are also entitled to a monthly allowance, which adds up to around 100 million Euros a year.”
(22)Norsefire: “I'm not necessarily saying it's not important, but it appears to be exceedingly convenient for the Jews, in my opinion.”
(I believe he is referring to benefits other than just the German government’s “guilt payments.”)
(23)James: “What is convenient? And why?”
(26)Quadraphonics: “It's "convenient" that people are reminded that millions of Jews were systematically eliminated?
Can one of the mods grow a pair of nuts and ban Norsefire, S.A.M. and Brian Foley now? This shit is degrading.”
I, Billy T, ask now: Would a Bedouin Memorial also be useful to remind people that Israel has annihilated a greater percentage of the desert Bedouins than Hitler did the Jews and occupied their lands without any payment? (Their old Ottoman deeds have no value in Israeli courts.) At least 200,000 Bedouins once roamed Sinai and Negev. Like Palestinians, many escaped / were driven / to other Arab land and ceased to be nomadic desert Bedouins. The few remaining in the desert are now confined in two or three concentration camps (called “enclosures” by Israel) on less than 2% of the Negev, where the soil is the poorest, so they are totally dependent upon Israel delivering food and water. Their extermination will be effectively completed in about one decade more as young Bedouin men can leave these enclosures to join the Israeli army. Thus the population of school age children at the largest of these enclosures will now fit in one school bus.
(27)Norsefire, answering James: “I am saying that, while the Holocaust was tragic, the Jews love to bring it up as an excuse for what they are doing in the 'Holy Land'. … Syrian Christians were genocided by the Turks in the early 20th; why doesn't anybody focus on that? … or what about the Gypsies and homosexuals? Why is it the Jews? Seems very convenient to me.”
(28) Norsefire, answering Quadraphonics: “How can you have a wonderful debate if you ban the other side?”
(29) Quadraphonics replying: “We aren't having a wonderful debate. We're being overrun by nasty racist ideologues who are obsessed with Jewish conspiracy theories.” Note this is the first name calling post.
(32) Norsefire, replying to Quad, who had defended his call (in 26) for banning by noting there were “endless reams of disgusting bigotry in support of such a recommendation” asks: “What is bigotry?”
(34)Quadraphonics: “A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices." This now bold definition is why I started this thread.
IMHO, James prematurely shut off discussion of this important ethical question (What is a bigot?).
I will use some of my own history as the tactical commander of the civil rights movement in Baltimore one summer:
By quad’s definition, I was a bigot as I obstinately and intolerantly held the very unpopular and disliked opinion that blacks should be allowed to sit down in restaurants serving whites. Furthermore, I was so dedicated to this politically incorrect and repulsive idea that I was willing to significantly destroy restaurants profits when I could.
The Civic Interest Group, already had several people in jail, and could not afford legal fees for more, so when the police arrived and ordered the integrated sit-ins groups to leave, we did and joined the picket line outside. Few would cross that line although some would spit on us. We did so much economic damage that after a couple of months, the Restaurant Association, switched positions and cut us a deal. They would use their influence with the Maryland State legislature to help get the “open to all” law passed and we eased off, at least on Sundays, when I estimated we cost each restaurant > $1,000 an hour in lost profits. On our best days, we effectively closed ~20 of Baltimore’s best restaurants. (And I believe generally reduced the number of people eating at resturants as no one knew where or when we would stike.)
SUMMARY: I refute Quadraphonic’s POV, and his quoted definition of a bigot. For me a bigot is one who attacks (even just verbally) another (or group) because of some characteristic or behavior over which they have no control. Such as being very short, stuttering, having black skin, being of another racial group, being homosexual, being physically deformed, etc.
Fortunately down thru history there have been enough of “Quad’s bigots” - obstinate and intolerant (non-compromising in their position) minority members to abolish slavery, debtor’s prisons, burning of witches or books, open restaurants to blacks, and at least limit the persecution of homosexuals, (In many places, more work is still needed here.) etc.
The main ethically question for me when you hold an unpopular minority POV obstinately and will not compromise it (intolerantly) is what right, if any, do you have to injure others opposing your POV?
I thought about that a lot while walking the picket lines or sitting at a restaurant table waiting for the police to arrive. My conclusion was that if you intentional, and obstinately break the law (or merely publicly confront the prevailing POV) then you must be willing to take the penalty the law imposes (or social rejection, e.g. be spit upon); however, any retribution for your acts must be non-permanent (no cutting off of your hands, etc.) and not more shocking to society than your behavior, which earned the punishment (e.g. no torture for supporting the right to pray to any God, or demanding return of democratic government under military dictatorships a cold -war era US helped to create in South America, etc.).
The questions for discussion in this thread are:
(1) Do you have the right to injure others to advance your obstinate uncompromising minority POV?
(2) If sometimes, “Yes” how is that right limited? (E.g. is never permitted to injure another person but OK to injure a corporation? For example, many years ago a boycott of Nestle was organized and eventually forced them to stop giving two cases of baby milk to African mothers of new born babies as they left the hospital. –Two case will dry up their breast milk and if at a hospital, they probably could afford to buy more. Nestle also falsely and knowingly gave the mothers literature indicating canned milk was better for the baby and bottles were the “modern way to nurse a baby.”)
(3) Under what circumstances, can you break the law (or society’s accepted behavior) and also try to escape from any punishment for doing so?
(4) Any other ethical questions associated with publically supporting your obstinate uncompromising, unpopular , minority POV.
Last edited by a moderator: