Hortlund
Posts: 2884
Joined: 10/13/2000 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mjk428 You keep repeating this and it's false. Morally there is definitely collective guilt. Germans that turned a blind eye to the death camps are guilty without ever having slaughtered anyone. Even legally, people are found guilty of crimes they didn't personally commit. If someone runs from the police and in the course of the chase the police kill an innocent bystander, the fugitive is charged with manslaugher/murder. Even if there was no crime committed to start the chain of events. Just a couple of examples. You may believe there is only individual guilt, but many others believe differently. And they've got precedent to back up their belief. 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. quote:
Overwhelmingly the Japs during WW2 behaved horribly. Those that didn't commit atrocities by and large undoubtedly witnessed them - only the freshest conscripts could have remained innocent. You being such a proud lawyer, it's understandable why you're hung up on technicalities. But there is a point, and the Japs of WW2 went well past it, that a group earns a blanket label. For instance, you often hear negative comments about lawyers. Yet there obviously must be a couple of decent ones somewhere. 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. quote:
Also, you seem to be able to assign collective guilt to the US without much difficulty. Comparing US internment camps to Axis camps - then weakly saying "not the death camps". Nice bait & switch. You even bring up the plight of the Indians. Although you seem to not realize/understand that it was Europeans that did 90% of the job on them. So that collective guilt assignment falls partially back on you. Nah, I am holding up the US camps as an example on why you should never try to assign guilt collectively...it will lead you to all the wrong conclusions. Somehow you seem to be missing that point. 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)".
_____________________________
The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences..
|