Since Nazis have already been mentioned, something to remember is that even in Nazi Germany they had to be secretive. T4 was stopped & restarted as a secret operation cos ppls were so opposed, and by pls I mean essentially other Nazis as well.
I don't cross the line you seem to have which is that some people are inherently;l bad. But why does even ethical point need to be also a legal one?
-
-
Quite the opposite. I dont think *anyone* is inherently good or bad & it solves nothing to consider every torch-bearing US Fascist as 'evil' & shd be punched/killed: the social factors that led them there must be considered. I cannot agree w the dichotomisation of human behaviour
-
This Tweet is unavailable
-
Why is treating them as bad/dangerous mutually exclusive to also addressing the root cause?
-
Because if you say "that guy wants to kill jews, lets execute him" it doesn't really leave much space to consider the context, does it?
-
What's the context? And execute might not be needed in every case. But if we are talking about a Nazi (= power plus fascist ideology) then killing is the only way.
-
This Tweet is unavailable
-
This Tweet is unavailable
-
So: most ppl are good, inherently, irrespective of the context of their upbringings or social influences. Those who are inherently bad are often attracted to Nazism. Once they salute, or shout "death to Jews" they can never be saved (bc they are self-selecting innate evildoers)?
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Codifying ethics into laws is not the only way to do ethics.
-
And the common law system actually acknowledges this with the whole spirit vs letter of the law thing going on.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.