mjk428 -> RE: Letters from Iwo Jima (11/20/2007 9:21:31 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund Lets look at this one step at a time. First you say that there is collective guilt, that it is false to say that guilt is always individual. After that you go on to prove your point... but here something odd happens. To prove your point that guilt is not always individual, you list of examples where we are examining the individuals, their actions or inactions, and then based on that examination...of the individuals...we determine guilt or not. For your theory to work, for guilt to be collective, you would have to show an example where the court has sentenced someone to something, without having tried that person individually. You will not succeed in that endeavor. You would need to dig up an example of where someone is guilty because, and only because, that someone is part of a group, and we have decided that all members of this group is guilty of something. You will never find such reasoning or arguments like that in any legal proceedings. You claim that morally we can assign guilt based on collective, but the same applies there. Even if you want to claim that someone is guilty of something because of action or inaction, you are making an individual analysis of that individual. The only point being that your statement "there is only individual guilt" is a belief of yours, not a fact. Legally, you're mostly correct. But even there, it's not so black & white. Morally, which is all that this discussion has ever been about, collective guilt is a time honored tradition. You may believe it's wrong, and I might agree that frequently it's applied undeservedly - that still doesn't make your statement true. It's a belief you have that not everyone shares. Just ask the citizens of Sodom & Gomorrah - oh wait, you can't. quote:
Same here. By saying that those who didnt commit/witness atrocities are guilty, you have made that individual trial of guilt. For your reasoning to work, you would need to skip that step. But that wasn't my point. The point was that when a group's behavior is so abysmal and becomes so prevalent all members of that group will "suffer" the consequences of a negative label. By and large Catholic priests harm no one, yet the horrible behavior of a distinct minority has tarnished the image of all of them. If someone on this forum were to make a negative statemnet about priests would you rise to defend priests and call the that person a bigot? I somehow doubt it. Yet you feel compelled to defend the mythical "good" Japanese soldier even when they were clearly a distinct minority. quote:
And if you think my "difference between concentration camps and extermination camps"-argument is weak, then by God take a look at your "it was not americans who did that...it was europeans (emigrated to america)". I guess you could call Cortez an immigrant but I would label him a European myself. I was talking about those fresh off the boat, which accounted for the overwhelming majority of Native American deaths. By the time the US had won independence, 90%+ were already gone. Now my sympathies certainly are with the Native American people, not that they necessarily want them. They were treated horribly but they also did their fair share of horrible deeds. It just doesn't compare to mass slaughter of millions of the defenseless in just a few years.
|
|
|
|