"burn your house down… brew you a cup of tea in the still-glowing embers" - good and evil in people

1356789

Comments

  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    edited July 2020
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    But was Churchill evil?
    He certainly did evil.

    Churchill was one the good guys who's job was to win the war.

    So was Stalin. The world is not divided into good people and death eaters, Harry.

    Stalin was not one of the good guys.

    But your only argument for Churchill being one of the good guys was his job was winning the war.

    The same can be said of Stalin.

    Neither of them were good guys.
    Exactly. He's a bastard, but on our side, doesn't make him less a bastard.
  • Marvin the MartianMarvin the Martian Admin Emeritus
    I'm not sure what conclusion you want to be drawn from this argument apart from 'therefore we need to tolerate racism'

    My point is that being good people with a good cause doesn't mean we're immune from doing great evil. Because humanity isn't divided into good people and bad people, all people are both good and bad. And believing that humanity is divided into good people and bad people makes it more likely that great evil will occur, because virtually everyone thinks they're in the "good" group, and therefore that the things they do must also be good.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Yeah but there seems to be a bit of an excluded middle here. There being good and bad in all of us doesn't imply we're all potential Hitlers any more than owning a chess board makes us potential grand masters.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    I'm never quite sure whether to count the deaths from carelessness or negligence motivated by ideological commitment in the same category as deliberate murder (I think most of the deaths attributed to Stalin and Mao are down to famine, are they not?).
    It's not exactly carelessness in Stalin's case. People who are short of food in the countryside make do, or if there's no food at all, starve. People who are short of food in cities organise and stage revolutions. Stalin decided to head off the possibility of the latter by keeping the cities fed.
    Still not as bad as deliberate genocide though; and also Stalin was in power for longer than Hitler.

  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Power corrupts, even if it's initially used for good.
    Except it is not Black and white. Not everyone who has power become the worst person they can be. In you scenario they would.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Boogie wrote: »
    Some evil people present as good.

    My whole point is that people aren't either evil or good, they're both.
    People have potential for good and bad, but we are not completely blank slates. And your model has us all evil, merely waiting for the chance to let it out.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    Boogie wrote: »
    Some evil people present as good.

    My whole point is that people aren't either evil or good, they're both. Someone being a bully to one person doesn't mean them being good to other people is just a facade or pretence, any more than them being good to some people doesn't mean they're not really a bully to others.

    Yes, I put that in terms which were too black-and-white.

    The bully I have in mind was pleasant, kind and helpful to her target. Until the target stopped being useful to her - then she turned on a sixpence and her true nature came out. The caring person was a facade.

  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Boogie wrote: »
    Boogie wrote: »
    Some evil people present as good.

    My whole point is that people aren't either evil or good, they're both. Someone being a bully to one person doesn't mean them being good to other people is just a facade or pretence, any more than them being good to some people doesn't mean they're not really a bully to others.

    Yes, I put that in terms which were too black-and-white.

    The bully I have in mind was pleasant, kind and helpful to her target. Until the target stopped being useful to her - then she turned on a sixpence and her true nature came out. The caring person was a facade.
    That is too black and white, IMO. The idea that one behaviour is the "true nature" is a bit simplistic in real life. Yes, there are people who are only kind when it suits them, but human behaviour can be more complex than that. I can likely find examples in my own life of nearly every level of innate kindness, from completely kind to a complete lack, but most people fall in between and most people vary depending on the circumstance. But not to the same degree and not with the same limitations.
  • Marvin the MartianMarvin the Martian Admin Emeritus
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Yeah but there seems to be a bit of an excluded middle here. There being good and bad in all of us doesn't imply we're all potential Hitlers any more than owning a chess board makes us potential grand masters.

    I'm not saying we're all equally likely to become Hitlers, just that the probability of us doing so is not zero.
  • Marvin the MartianMarvin the Martian Admin Emeritus
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Boogie wrote: »
    Some evil people present as good.

    My whole point is that people aren't either evil or good, they're both.
    People have potential for good and bad, but we are not completely blank slates. And your model has us all evil, merely waiting for the chance to let it out.

    Absolutely not. All I'm doing is pointing out that given the right set of circumstances the potential for evil that you agree is in us all will come out.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Yeah but there seems to be a bit of an excluded middle here. There being good and bad in all of us doesn't imply we're all potential Hitlers any more than owning a chess board makes us potential grand masters.

    I'm not saying we're all equally likely to become Hitlers, just that the probability of us doing so is not zero.
    Of course it is. Not for ever single person, but for most people. Most people would not become Hitler, regardless of the situation. More people are potential bastards than likely think they are, but bastards on a different scale.

  • Marvin the MartianMarvin the Martian Admin Emeritus
    Boogie wrote: »
    The bully I have in mind was pleasant, kind and helpful to her target. Until the target stopped being useful to her - then she turned on a sixpence and her true nature came out. The caring person was a facade.

    Why do you assume the bully was the true nature and the caring person the facade? Why not the other way around? Is our "true self" to be defined by the worst of our actions, the best, or the sum of them all?
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Boogie wrote: »
    The bully I have in mind was pleasant, kind and helpful to her target. Until the target stopped being useful to her - then she turned on a sixpence and her true nature came out. The caring person was a facade.

    Why do you assume the bully was the true nature and the caring person the facade? Why not the other way around? Is our "true self" to be defined by the worst of our actions, the best, or the sum of them all?
    A person is not truly kind if they are only kind when people capitulate.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    edited July 2020
    Boogie wrote: »
    The bully I have in mind was pleasant, kind and helpful to her target. Until the target stopped being useful to her - then she turned on a sixpence and her true nature came out. The caring person was a facade.

    Why do you assume the bully was the true nature and the caring person the facade? Why not the other way around? Is our "true self" to be defined by the worst of our actions, the best, or the sum of them all?

    Who knows?

    But speaking to other targets of her bullying was quite enlightening. Plus the fact that she had alienated all her family and friends over the years.

    I think motivation is important. If someone’s kindness is motivated by selfishness then it wouldn’t take much for them to remove that kindness.

    Those whose actions are motivated by caring and thoughtfulness will make mistakes and get things wrong. But they will apologise quickly and work at putting things right.



  • Marvin the MartianMarvin the Martian Admin Emeritus
    This seems to be working towards a conclusion that someone is considered good if they are good all the time, and considered bad if they are bad any of the time. That's a high bar to clear.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    This seems to be working towards a conclusion that someone is considered good if they are good all the time, and considered bad if they are bad any of the time. That's a high bar to clear.

    It’s an impossible bar to clear. But admitting our mistakes and working to put them right is a start, is it not? So is pondering our motivations.



  • Marvin the MartianMarvin the Martian Admin Emeritus
    Boogie wrote: »
    This seems to be working towards a conclusion that someone is considered good if they are good all the time, and considered bad if they are bad any of the time. That's a high bar to clear.

    It’s an impossible bar to clear.

    And yet I get called the pessimistic one.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    But was Churchill evil?
    He certainly did evil.

    Churchill was one the good guys who's job was to win the war.

    So was Stalin. The world is not divided into good people and death eaters, Harry.

    Stalin was not one of the good guys.

    But your only argument for Churchill being one of the good guys was his job was winning the war.

    The same can be said of Stalin.

    Neither of them were good guys.

    I consider it atrocious to lump the democratic Churchill with the dictator Stalin who was in a pact with Hitler till Hitler turned on him. Churchill refused any sort of pact and we fought on alone.
  • Telford wrote: »
    I consider it atrocious to lump the democratic Churchill with the dictator Stalin who was in a pact with Hitler till Hitler turned on him. Churchill refused any sort of pact and we fought on alone.

    Churchill took over as PM after Chamberlain as part of the wartime coalition. There was no election, and he only got the job because Labour MPs (who were going to move No Confidence in Chamberlain unless he resigned) gave him the nod.

    The number of countries we 'fought on alone' with are, frankly, too numerous to mention. The entirety of the British Empire (which at the time was around 1/4 of the inhabited landmass of the planet), for a start.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited July 2020
    Boogie wrote: »
    The bully I have in mind was pleasant, kind and helpful to her target. Until the target stopped being useful to her - then she turned on a sixpence and her true nature came out. The caring person was a facade.
    Why do you assume the bully was the true nature and the caring person the facade? Why not the other way around? Is our "true self" to be defined by the worst of our actions, the best, or the sum of them all?

    I'm not sure it's all that useful to speculate about true natures and façades. Does it make a huge difference whether someone bullies others because they're evil or if they bully others because they're a theoretically good person who had a bad day and needs to take it out on someone who can't fight back? Isn't it the bullying that's problematic?

    I see a lot of this motivational justification in modern apologists for racism. (Or "race realists", as they prefer to be called these days.) They say they're not racist, because racism is all about hate (i.e. someone's internal motivation) and they don't hate members of inferior races (however defined), they just have a "realistic" view of the obvious inferiority of certain racial/ethnic groups (and that society should be re-ordered along those lines).

    This way of viewing things is very useful because it sets up a person's internal motivations as the only true metric by which to judge them and the only person who knows your internal motivations is you. Ergo, no one else can legitimately have an opinion about anything you do.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    But was Churchill evil?
    He certainly did evil.

    Churchill was one the good guys who's job was to win the war.

    So was Stalin. The world is not divided into good people and death eaters, Harry.

    Stalin was not one of the good guys.

    But your only argument for Churchill being one of the good guys was his job was winning the war.

    The same can be said of Stalin.

    Neither of them were good guys.

    I consider it atrocious to lump the democratic Churchill with the dictator Stalin who was in a pact with Hitler till Hitler turned on him. Churchill refused any sort of pact and we fought on alone.
    Ask the Bengalis their stance on Churchill.Or the Pakistanis who he helped subjugate, the black Africans he helped imprison in concentration camps. Perhaps you approve of his stance as an MP to continue the conquests because "the Aryan stock is bound to triumph", the use of the Black and Tans against Irish civilians or his desire to use poison gas against the Kurds for their temerity to fight against being conquered.

    Refused any pact? Do you not remember the lend-lease agreement with the US? The same US that Churchill did his best to encourage to join the war?
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    I consider it atrocious to lump the democratic Churchill with the dictator Stalin who was in a pact with Hitler till Hitler turned on him. Churchill refused any sort of pact and we fought on alone.

    Churchill took over as PM after Chamberlain as part of the wartime coalition. There was no election, and he only got the job because Labour MPs (who were going to move No Confidence in Chamberlain unless he resigned) gave him the nod.
    The Conservatives had a massive majority and were in a position to choose whovere they wanted as PM.
    The number of countries we 'fought on alone' with are, frankly, too numerous to mention. The entirety of the British Empire (which at the time was around 1/4 of the inhabited landmass of the planet), for a start.
    In 1940 none of these 'allies' stood between the UK and conquered France. I do, of course recognise the part played by foreign pilots, especially the Poles.

  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    But was Churchill evil?
    He certainly did evil.

    Churchill was one the good guys who's job was to win the war.

    So was Stalin. The world is not divided into good people and death eaters, Harry.

    Stalin was not one of the good guys.

    But your only argument for Churchill being one of the good guys was his job was winning the war.

    The same can be said of Stalin.

    Neither of them were good guys.

    I consider it atrocious to lump the democratic Churchill with the dictator Stalin who was in a pact with Hitler till Hitler turned on him. Churchill refused any sort of pact and we fought on alone.
    Ask the Bengalis their stance on Churchill.Or the Pakistanis who he helped subjugate, the black Africans he helped imprison in concentration camps. Perhaps you approve of his stance as an MP to continue the conquests because "the Aryan stock is bound to triumph", the use of the Black and Tans against Irish civilians or his desire to use poison gas against the Kurds for their temerity to fight against being conquered.

    Refused any pact? Do you not remember the lend-lease agreement with the US? The same US that Churchill did his best to encourage to join the war?

    You know full well that I was referring to a pact with Hitler. Do you think that Churchill should have told the USA to keep out of the war ?
  • Telford wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    I consider it atrocious to lump the democratic Churchill with the dictator Stalin who was in a pact with Hitler till Hitler turned on him. Churchill refused any sort of pact and we fought on alone.

    Churchill took over as PM after Chamberlain as part of the wartime coalition. There was no election, and he only got the job because Labour MPs (who were going to move No Confidence in Chamberlain unless he resigned) gave him the nod.
    The Conservatives had a massive majority and were in a position to choose whovere they wanted as PM.
    No. No, they weren't. As part of the National Unity government, they needed the consent of the Labour party for the new leader.
    The number of countries we 'fought on alone' with are, frankly, too numerous to mention. The entirety of the British Empire (which at the time was around 1/4 of the inhabited landmass of the planet), for a start.
    In 1940 none of these 'allies' stood between the UK and conquered France. I do, of course recognise the part played by foreign pilots, especially the Poles.

    I think you'll find that the raw materials, food and men that enabled us to continue fighting came from everywhere. And they weren't 'allies'. They were allies. But at least you're now recognising that the situation wasn't as you first asserted. We had an enormous amount of aid from overseas. (Wikipedia cites airman from 15 different nations/dominions taking part in the Battle of Britain.)
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    I see full well you ignored the Churchill's atrocities. But I understand why, it was only foreign brown buggers and the Irish...
  • Boogie wrote: »
    Too much talk here of extremes.

    Can we talk about ordinary people who don’t turn out to be fascist dictators?

    Some evil people present as good. Put on a face. They can be very good at it. Think of the bully who is lovely to everyone except the person they are bullying. Who pulls the wool over even discerning eyes.

    Think of the abusive partner who presents as a kind and loving person to the world.

    This isn’t a good person with potential to do evil. This isn’t a person who is good but has some faults/blind spots. This is a person who wants to be seen as ‘good’, but isn’t. A whitewashed tomb.

    How do we deal with him/her?

    Individually. Which sucks, because it requires SO MUCH more brainpower and creative thinking. But there you go.
  • Marvin the MartianMarvin the Martian Admin Emeritus
    Crœsos wrote: »
    I'm not sure it's all that useful to speculate about true natures and façades. Does it make a huge difference whether someone bullies others because they're evil or if they bully others because they're a theoretically good person who had a bad day and needs to take it out on someone who can't fight back?

    That’s still too binary an approach. I’m saying people are both good and bad, rather than “truly” one of those options.
    Isn't it the bullying that's problematic?

    Yes, very much.
    I see a lot of this motivational justification in modern apologists for racism. (Or "race realists", as they prefer to be called these days.) They say they're not racist, because racism is all about hate (i.e. someone's internal motivation) and they don't hate members of inferior races (however defined), they just have a "realistic" view of the obvious inferiority of certain racial/ethnic groups (and that society should be re-ordered along those lines).

    This way of viewing things is very useful because it sets up a person's internal motivations as the only true metric by which to judge them and the only person who knows your internal motivations is you. Ergo, no one else can legitimately have an opinion about anything you do.

    Not at all what I’m saying. The point is no more to justify the evil in someone by appeal to the good than it is to erase the good in them because of the evil. I dislike both approaches.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    This way of viewing things is very useful because it sets up a person's internal motivations as the only true metric by which to judge them and the only person who knows your internal motivations is you. Ergo, no one else can legitimately have an opinion about anything you do.

    Not at all what I’m saying. The point is no more to justify the evil in someone by appeal to the good than it is to erase the good in them because of the evil. I dislike both approaches.

    I know. You're opposed to justifying anything. Or finding fault in anything. Nothing can be either justified or blameworthy.
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Isn't it the bullying that's problematic?
    Yes, very much.

    Hey now, what happened to not erasing the good? If bullying is problematic, doesn't that cast bullies as blameworthy for their bullying?
  • Marvin the MartianMarvin the Martian Admin Emeritus
    Christ on a fucking bike, is it really that hard?

    The good is praiseworthy. The bad is blameworthy. Both statements are true, not neither.

    You want to criticise someone for their evil deeds? Be my fucking guest. But don’t try to claim that their evil deeds, no matter how prolific or severe they were, mean the good deeds of that person didn’t exist.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Christ on a fucking bike, is it really that hard?

    The good is praiseworthy. The bad is blameworthy. Both statements are true, not neither.

    You want to criticise someone for their evil deeds? Be my fucking guest. But don’t try to claim that their evil deeds, no matter how prolific or severe they were, mean the good deeds of that person didn’t exist.

    The problem is that anytime someone's actions are criticized as evil there's a rousing chorus of "but what about the autobahns?" or "everyone has some good in them" (or similar) by folks who want to show how forgiving and enlightened they are by pointing out the Führer's good side, so very often the whole "be my fucking guest" invitation to criticism feels like a trap.
  • I'll simply repeat what I said upthread: to your victims, your good deeds matter not at all.
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    MarvintheMartian: You want to criticise someone for their evil deeds? Be my fucking guest. But don’t try to claim that their evil deeds, no matter how prolific or severe they were, mean the good deeds of that person didn’t exist.

    ISTM that the point at issue here is whether an individual is ontologically good or ontologically bad, in which case the amount of good or bad they do is irrelevant to defining their moral status: a bit like predestination; or that all individuals morally are a mixture of good and bad in their desires and motivations, and they do good and bad things according to the interaction between their temperament and personality with their external environment, for which they should be praised and blamed in accordance with the merits of their various deeds.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate

    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    I consider it atrocious to lump the democratic Churchill with the dictator Stalin who was in a pact with Hitler till Hitler turned on him. Churchill refused any sort of pact and we fought on alone.

    Churchill took over as PM after Chamberlain as part of the wartime coalition. There was no election, and he only got the job because Labour MPs (who were going to move No Confidence in Chamberlain unless he resigned) gave him the nod.
    The Conservatives had a massive majority and were in a position to choose whovere they wanted as PM.
    No. No, they weren't. As part of the National Unity government, they needed the consent of the Labour party for the new leader.
    Labour did not even consent to be part of a government of National unity untill Churchill was made leader. I note that after the war, when we were still in crisis, Labour were not interested in sharing power with others
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    I consider it atrocious to lump the democratic Churchill with the dictator Stalin who was in a pact with Hitler till Hitler turned on him. Churchill refused any sort of pact and we fought on alone.

    Churchill took over as PM after Chamberlain as part of the wartime coalition. There was no election, and he only got the job because Labour MPs (who were going to move No Confidence in Chamberlain unless he resigned) gave him the nod.
    The Conservatives had a massive majority and were in a position to choose whovere they wanted as PM.
    No. No, they weren't. As part of the National Unity government, they needed the consent of the Labour party for the new leader.
    The number of countries we 'fought on alone' with are, frankly, too numerous to mention. The entirety of the British Empire (which at the time was around 1/4 of the inhabited landmass of the planet), for a start.
    In 1940 none of these 'allies' stood between the UK and conquered France. I do, of course recognise the part played by foreign pilots, especially the Poles.

    I think you'll find that the raw materials, food and men that enabled us to continue fighting came from everywhere. And they weren't 'allies'. They were allies. But at least you're now recognising that the situation wasn't as you first asserted. We had an enormous amount of aid from overseas. (Wikipedia cites airman from 15 different nations/dominions taking part in the Battle of Britain.)

    If they sent the aid in their own ships, they were allies. If we had to collect it in our ships, we were customers. I have already covered the airmen
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Could you clarify your comments about Germany please. It sounds a bit like you are saying that Germany's situation was particularly susceptible to fascism.
    Part of it fairly unequivocally was. The hardships set in place by the Treaty of Versailles are acknowledged to have created fertile soil for Hitler's rise.

    Faugh. This was Hitler's excuse and the flag he waved to get support.
    So you are saying that the Germans were just more evil?
    It was literally a textbook cause.

    What kind of non sequitur is this? Please desist.
  • Gee D wrote: »
    Kwesi wrote: »

    Largely because fascist Germany murdered more than six million jews, together with gypsies and other non-humans, individuals with various disabilities, conducted murderous medical experiments on others, racially discriminated against the slavs, plunged Europe into war, causing great misery.

    Of course, the 2 great mass-murderers of all time were Stalin and Mao, each of whom killed more than 20 million of their own peoples. No excuse for Hitler though.

    I'm never quite sure whether to count the deaths from carelessness or negligence motivated by ideological commitment in the same category as deliberate murder (I think most of the deaths attributed to Stalin and Mao are down to famine, are they not?). If we are then we have to talk about the Bengal Famine too.

    You might want to read about the Gulags.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Gee D wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    Many of those killed by Stalin - eg the Cossacks - did in fact die from famine, that famine occurring when they were deliberately moved en masse to a place with inadequate food resources. I'd count that as murder. Those who died in the Cultural Revolution fall into much the same category. I'd count neither as negligence of carelessness.

    If you look at the history of famines in the British Empire they have a strong tendency to occur in places where the indigenous people had proved troublesome to the ruling power. Of course things like famines are over-determined, and there it is possible to find mitigating factors for each one, but the overall pattern is fairly clear.

    Do you have any facts behind those assertions?

    It's what I take from the work of Mike Davis and Dirk Moses; I think they show a relatively clear pattern of famine being used as a policy tool by a number of imperial regimes including that of the British.

    Certainly it's a choice on your part to ask for evidence in one case but to discount excuses of negligence and carelessness in the other.

    Not sure what your last paragraph refers to.
  • Marvin the MartianMarvin the Martian Admin Emeritus
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    I'll simply repeat what I said upthread: to your victims, your good deeds matter not at all.

    Then we’re all condemned.
  • Marvin the MartianMarvin the Martian Admin Emeritus
    Kwesi wrote: »
    MarvintheMartian: You want to criticise someone for their evil deeds? Be my fucking guest. But don’t try to claim that their evil deeds, no matter how prolific or severe they were, mean the good deeds of that person didn’t exist.

    ISTM that the point at issue here is whether an individual is ontologically good or ontologically bad, in which case the amount of good or bad they do is irrelevant to defining their moral status: a bit like predestination; or that all individuals morally are a mixture of good and bad in their desires and motivations, and they do good and bad things according to the interaction between their temperament and personality with their external environment, for which they should be praised and blamed in accordance with the merits of their various deeds.

    Yes. Thank you. I’m obviously in the second camp.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Could you clarify your comments about Germany please. It sounds a bit like you are saying that Germany's situation was particularly susceptible to fascism.
    Part of it fairly unequivocally was. The hardships set in place by the Treaty of Versailles are acknowledged to have created fertile soil for Hitler's rise.

    Faugh. This was Hitler's excuse and the flag he waved to get support.
    So you are saying that the Germans were just more evil?
    It was literally a textbook cause.

    What kind of non sequitur is this? Please desist.
    What non-sequiter?

  • Doc TorDoc Tor Admin
    edited July 2020
    Telford wrote: »
    Labour did not even consent to be part of a government of National unity untill Churchill was made leader.
    Yeah, that's a bit of rewriting of history there. Labour were not part of the government until 1940 is what's true there.
    I note that after the war, when we were still in crisis, Labour were not interested in sharing power with others

    And thank God they weren't.

    Fixed broken quoting code. BroJames, Purgatory Host
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    I'll simply repeat what I said upthread: to your victims, your good deeds matter not at all.

    Then we’re all condemned.

    That rather depends on whether or not you create victims, and to what degree your offence is. If you fuck up, you apologise, you make amends, you try and do the good you know you can, and not the evil you know you ought not.

    I have no idea why this is complicated in any way. It's literally been the mainstay of Christian living for the last 2000 years.
  • Telford wrote: »
    If they sent the aid in their own ships, they were allies. If we had to collect it in our ships, we were customers. I have already covered the airmen

    So they were allies then.
    Telford wrote: »
    Labour did not even consent to be part of a government of National unity untill Churchill was made leader. I note that after the war, when we were still in crisis, Labour were not interested in sharing power with others

    Not sure what the relevance of this is, given that they'd just won a democratic election.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Could you clarify your comments about Germany please. It sounds a bit like you are saying that Germany's situation was particularly susceptible to fascism.
    Part of it fairly unequivocally was. The hardships set in place by the Treaty of Versailles are acknowledged to have created fertile soil for Hitler's rise.

    Faugh. This was Hitler's excuse and the flag he waved to get support.
    So you are saying that the Germans were just more evil?
    It was literally a textbook cause.

    What kind of non sequitur is this? Please desist.
    What non-sequiter?

    Not playing this game.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    If they sent the aid in their own ships, they were allies. If we had to collect it in our ships, we were customers. I have already covered the airmen

    So they were allies then.
    Telford wrote: »
    Labour did not even consent to be part of a government of National unity untill Churchill was made leader. I note that after the war, when we were still in crisis, Labour were not interested in sharing power with others

    Not sure what the relevance of this is, given that they'd just won a democratic election.

    As did the Conservatives in 1931 and 1935
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    edited July 2020
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Labour did not even consent to be part of a government of National unity untill Churchill was made leader.
    Yeah, that's a bit of rewriting of history there. Labour were not part of the government until 1940 is what's true there.
    On May 11 1940 and therefore would not have had a say in who was the next PM.

  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Could you clarify your comments about Germany please. It sounds a bit like you are saying that Germany's situation was particularly susceptible to fascism.
    Part of it fairly unequivocally was. The hardships set in place by the Treaty of Versailles are acknowledged to have created fertile soil for Hitler's rise.

    Faugh. This was Hitler's excuse and the flag he waved to get support.
    So you are saying that the Germans were just more evil?
    It was literally a textbook cause.

    What kind of non sequitur is this? Please desist.
    What non-sequiter?

    Not playing this game.
    It isn't a game. If you deny the accepted historical conclusions, then you have an alternate theory. Implying you meant evil might be facetious, but hand-waiving away scholarly examination isn't very helpful.

  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    why the hell do these discussions always end up with bloody fascism? How many times do we have to go over and over this annoying bullshit? Why can't we talk about human nature without always ending up here? It shits me.
    Because, of the most egregious events of modern history, it is the clearest and easiest example of humans at their worst. Stalin's and Mao's horrors were less clear and less focused. Pol Pot's too foreign, I suppose.

    But its not the extremes that matter. It's the every day. The question is not could I participate in another holocaust, but would I intimidate a person with dementia to make them do what I want. The evil within us is the common or garden variety. The extremes are just intellectual wanking.

    Sorry, haven't read the posts after this one yet. There are 77 of them and I just woke up after a post-sleepover snooze.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Not sure what the relevance of this is, given that they'd just won a democratic election.

    Not just won a democratic election; Labour had just won a democratic general election with a thumping majority.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    why the hell do these discussions always end up with bloody fascism? How many times do we have to go over and over this annoying bullshit? Why can't we talk about human nature without always ending up here? It shits me.
    Because, of the most egregious events of modern history, it is the clearest and easiest example of humans at their worst. Stalin's and Mao's horrors were less clear and less focused. Pol Pot's too foreign, I suppose.

    But its not the extremes that matter. It's the every day.
    The extremes are an example of what the everyday can be bent into following.
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    The question is not could I participate in another holocaust, but would I intimidate a person with dementia to make them do what I want. The evil within us is the common or garden variety.
    The discussion, at least as generated by the OP, is about the good within evil people.
    It began with Hitler, Hussein and Stalin.
    They represent the depths to which some humans can sink. But I agree that most of us will not be that evil. Most of the evil we do is small and medium.
Sign In or Register to comment.