Re: Lethality of events

Mere moments before death, John Morrow <morrow@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> hastily
scrawled:

>On Thu, 10 May 2007, Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
>>> The problem with personal twisted fantasies is that reinforcement and
>>> encouragement can not only strengthen them but make them more twisted.
>
>> Agreed, and as I said, it's not something that I'd recommend doing,
>> but not on moral grounds.
>
>On what grounds, then?

On the grounds that it's potentially psychologically traumatizing.  I
don't see any good reason to expose oneself to psychological trauma.

>> I can certainly agree with that, I just don't see blaming the symptoms
>> to be useful.
>
>I think that identifying all of the factors is generally useful.
>
>> Absolutely, there's just far too many examples from history to think
>> otherwise.  The problem is you can't just allow whoever or whatever
>> leads someone astray to remove the moral responsibility from those
>> being led.
>
>I don't think it removes the moral responsibility, but part of that 
>responsibility is to avoid being led into temptation in the first place.
>
>> It's like saying Hitler made the guards at the concentration camps to
>> do the terrible things he did, so they're not morally responsible.
>
>I think there are varying degrees of moral responsibility based on the 
>actions and motivations of the individual.  One can minimally or 
>reluctantly follow orders at the one extreme and follow them with great 
>zeal and cruelty at the other extreme.  I don't think that the former is 
>morally equivalent to the latter.

Certainly not morally equivalent, but comparable nonetheless.

>> While it's certainly true that they were largely "following orders",
>> it's also true that they were following some terrible orders and
>> should have refused.
>
>While I know this is unpopular to say, I think it's very easy to sit in 
>safety and tell people that they should have refused orders when doing so

>most certainly would have meant death or some other horrible fate. 
>Exactly what do you think the Nazis would have done to people who refused

>orders?  In a more broad moral sense, demanding that people refuse cruel
>orders when such a refusal will mean their death is demanding that people

>sacrifice their lives for others, a demand that we would make in almost
no 
>other context.
>
>Please note that I'm not claiming that it wouldn't be right, good, and 
>noble to refuse such orders and that I wouldn't prefer that people
refused 
>such orders, nor am I claiming that the orders aren't wrong or evil. 
>What I'm saying is that I think holding people morally responsible for
not 
>throwing their own lives away, often not even to save the lives of others

>(because another person will surely step in and execute the order that 
>they refused) doesn't seem very just to me.

I think we are in complete agreement here.

>> Some did, and most were punished harshly and someone else stepped in
and 
>> followed the order anyway, but the fact that someone else would just do

>> it anyway doesn't excuse such behavior.
>
>Why do you think someone is someone obliged to throw their life away when

>it won't even save someone else?

It isn't necessarily throwing one's life away.  If enough Germans had
decided to not follow through with the Final Solution, then it
wouldn't have stood a chance to begin with.  There was a point, quite
early in the course of events, where a single person standing up and
saying, "No.  This is not right, I refuse to participate." could have
been enough to inspire others and lead to the failure of Hitler's
plans.

>> I hate using Hitler and the Nazis as examples on Usenet, and must
>> insist that you and other readers don't infer that I'm comparing you
>> or anyone here to Hitler, Nazis or their sympathizers.
>
>I have no problem using Nazis as an example, so long as they are used
>reasonably, as I think you are doing here.

I scrapped that bit a couple times before actually sending it.  Usenet
is still a place where some words are like talismans that cause
particular reactions.  Some of them quite contrary to what one would
expect in ordinary discourse.  The disclaimer was not really there for
you, but for the lurkers and trolls.

>> I think we've got a bit more common ground than it would first have
>> appeared.  I just don't think you necessarily need to enjoy being a
>> vicious baby-eating rapist in order to enjoy playing one.
>
>This leads us back to considering how a person might enjoy playing a 
>baby-eating rapist, a point you don't seem to want to discuss in any 
>detail.

I have addressed this a couple of times and gave some examples of the
kinds of situations where it'd be at least appropriate and perhaps
even fun.  Mind you, I'm referring to a more general playing of evil
characters than the BER, but I really think it's going to have to wait
for some of the heat in this thread to die down to really get into it.

Suffice it to say that I think there are legitimate reasons other than
simply vicariously living out evil fantasies for playing a character
who is evil.




-- 
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homo***uality mathematically, using
modifier G @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
                           --Terry Austin