Photos, vids, etc ....

[sear]

PS

"This is a tactic to shut down discussion." D #19

Psychologist Joy Browne says when someone tries to rope you into a tug-o'-war you want no part of, drop your end of the rope.
mm controls his end. You control yours. And as Brandeis reminds:

"Sunlight is the best disinfectant". Louis D. Brandeis

Anyone that posts fallacy is subject to exposure. And the more flagrant the fallacy, the more conspicuous the correction.

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

I'd be careful about extrapolating from a single data point.

It's not single data point. it's FOUR data points. He has done that four times now -- twice with putin and twice with Columbus.

 

[mark mywords]

Ferdinand and Isabella were so impressed by Columbus' tales of the ready availability of slaves that they financed additional ships for his second voyage (so obviously had no moral objection to slaves and since slavery and forced labour of itself is abhorrent they obviously had no moral issue with treating people badly) so why should she care how badly Columbus treated the natives other than the more he killed the fewer he could bring her as slaves.

So Columbus took 9 year olds as sex slaves and prostitutes - THE HORROR In the 1400s children as young as 9 and 10 commonly got married (and occasionally still do in the USA).

in 1396. Eleanor of Castile married Edward I of England at age 10.
Margaret Beaufort married John de la Pole in 1450; both bride and groom were just seven.
In 1478, the five-year-old Anne de Mowbray was married to another child, the four-year-old Richard of Shrewsbury

*In 2006 an 11 year old boy got married in Tennessee, between 2000 and 2015 3 ten year olds two 11 year olds and ten 12 year olds married in the US.

So tell me again how having sex with 9 year olds was not culturally acceptable to Europeans in 1492

 

[mark mywords]

No, excusing -- because Mark is trying to use that as a COUNTER, to shut down discussion.

I am not trying to shut down discussion I am pointing out that your arguments are hypocritical.

Doctrine of clean hands dont criticise others for doing what you do

Condemn something that your adopted country has not itself done and I might agree with you.
If you are going to criticise Russia for attacking civilians then FIRST you must attack America for doing the same, if you want to attack Russia for invading Ukraine the FIRST you should attack America for its many invasions, If you want to attack Columbus for his antics in the 1500s then you must FIRST attack America for doing much the same in 1800s

After what my country did in Australia (and elsewhere) I am in no position to criticise Columbus, After what my country has done in various places around the planet I am in no position to criticise Russia

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

Doctrine of clean hands dont criticise others for doing what you do

No, Doctrine of Clean Hands is that the plaintiff is not entitled to a remedy to a wrong done TO THEMSELVES if they THEMSELVES do the same wrong.

I.e. if I go around cheating people, I am not entitled to a remedy for myself over being cheated.

But in putin's case for instance, we aren't complaining about wrong done to USA -- we are complaining about wrong done to third parties, Ukraine and humanity.

Same with Columbus. We aren't complaining that Columbus enslaved and abused US, we are complaining that he enslaved and abused innocents.

Your overriding drive to excuse crimes against humanity -- even through outright lies -- is duly noted.

You are, and remain, a genocide apologist. And all your efforts go to continuing to defend and justify your genocide apologiae.

 

[Shiftless2]

I didn't misrepresent anything.

See? once again you are excusing genocide.

Any decent human being would say that BOTH are horrible, regardless of "the times".

But you aren't a decent human being. You are a genocide apologist, and your goal is to prevent the moral issue from being raised at all.

​

Shiftless: Columbus was evil!​

Mark: No, he was just a man of his time.​

Victor: No he wasn't, even by the standards of his time he was evil.​

Mark: Uhhh, well, USA was evil too!​

You are a genocide apologist, Mark.

I hope that helps.

True - there have been lots of evil people over the centuries. But just because "Hitler was a bad man" that doesn't excuse the actions of Columbus.

And, unlike Columbus, we're not declaring holidays in their honor or honoring them by holding parades in their name.

Of course we do see this

 

[sear]

But just because "Hitler was a bad man" that doesn't excuse the actions of Columbus.

That's what I was thinkin'.



Skokie, aka
National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 (1977)

It's a widely misunderstood point about 1A.
Our First Amendment isn't needed to declare one's love of Mom. Who would challenge it, except Dad, after the divorce?
Protecting popular speech, not necessary.
1A protects unpopular speech.

 

[mark mywords]

True - there have been lots of evil people over the centuries. But just because "Hitler was a bad man" that doesn't excuse the actions of Columbus.

And, unlike Columbus, we're not declaring holidays in their honor or honoring them by holding parades in their name.

you can only judge a persons actions by the societal norms of the time ("the past is a foreign land "and all that)

If we say Hitler was a bad man that has some credibility because Hitler lived in the modern era when things were not very different than today Columbus did not.

Hitler did little that had not been done before - he just may have done it more efficiently and on a larger scale..1190 In England Jews were rounded up their houses and property burnt and the Jews either killed or exiled in the town of York about 150 Jews were rounded up into a tower which was burnt killing all present

almost exactly 100 years later 1290 all Jews (that had not taken the hint) were exiled from England and it was 350 years before Cromwell let them back in

You might not have holidays in their name but you do put up statues and name public buildings to celebrate them

 

[sear]

Not to clash skulls, but to add a little illumination:

"Hitler did little that had not been done before -" m #28

Hitler is a name synonymous with bad guy. Hitler DELIBERATELY exterminated millions, a deliberate attempt at global eugenics (an idea he got from the U.S.). BUT !!
Stalin killed more than Hitler did, totalitarian "purges" etc. Also deliberate. BUT !!
Mao killed more than either of those two. BUT !! Mao's ~10 million dead starved to death due to Mao's ostensibly benevolent agricultural reforms.

The lesson?
Benevolent intent has in FACT (rather than hypothetical possibility) proved to be more deadly than the most ruthless malice history has ever known.

 

[Shiftless2]

This gives Dad jokes a bad name ...

 

[Shiftless2]

you can only judge a persons actions by the societal norms of the time ("the past is a foreign land "and all that)

If we say Hitler was a bad man that has some credibility because ....

Hitler did little that had not been done before - he just may have done it more efficiently and on a larger scale..

Fact is, the church had been preaching that "the Jews killed Jesus" for centuries do his actions weren't exactly out of the mainstream thought of his times. In fact I remember my student days walking by a cathedral near my apartment and prominently displayed on their bulletin board was the title of that weeks upcoming sermon "Does it matter that the Jews killed Jesus" (they didn't it was the Romans) but the important thing is that philosophy was alive and well even then.

For that matter Hitler was NEVER excommunicated nor condemned by his church. Matter of fact the Church felt he was JUST and “avenging for God” in attacking the Jews for they deemed the Semites the killers of Jesus.

To digress, this makes interesting reading.

The Atheist Atrocities Fallacy – Hitler, Stalin & Pol Pot

In Memory of Christopher Hitchens Religious apologists, particularly those of the Christian variety, are big fans of what I have dubbed, the atheist atrocities fallacy. Christians commonly employ t…

michaelsherlockauthor.wordpress.com

 

[sear]

""Does it matter that the Jews killed Jesus" (they didn't it was the Romans)" S #31

Roman Jews?
With space lasers ?! Those bastards are still at it !

 

[sear]

PS
Regarding S2's #31 link:

In Memory of Christopher Hitchens

A fundamental Christian premise:
Created sick, and commanded to be well. Christopher Hitchens

“To 'choose' dogma and faith over doubt and experience is to throw out the ripening vintage and to reach greedily for the Kool-Aid.” Christopher Hitchens
God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything

"Owners of dogs will have noticed that, if you provide them with food and water and shelter and affection, they will think you are god. Whereas owners of cats are compelled to realize that, if you provide them with food and water and shelter and affection, they draw the conclusion that they are gods." - Christopher Hitchens

S2,
For me the difference is, atrocities like Torqemada's Inquisition were perpetrated, inflicted in the name of, in ostensible service to a particular deity or religion.
An agnostic whether conscientious or indifferent could perpetrate the same amount of carnage, but not sully any ideology in the process, other than perhaps by negative inference: see, this is what happens when you don't say your prayers ... .

 

[mark mywords]

Hitler is a name synonymous with bad guy. Hitler DELIBERATELY exterminated millions, a deliberate attempt at global eugenics (an idea he got from the U.S.). BUT !!
Stalin killed more than Hitler did, totalitarian "purges" etc. Also deliberate. BUT !!
Mao killed more than either of those two. BUT !! Mao's ~10 million dead starved to death due to Mao's ostensibly benevolent agricultural reforms.

How many Americans has the US government killed?

 

[Shiftless2]

For me the difference is, atrocities like Torqemada's Inquisition were perpetrated, inflicted in the name of, in ostensible service to a particular deity or religion.

You mean like Hitler's?

 

[sear]

"Mao's ~10 million dead starved to death due to Mao's ostensibly benevolent agricultural reforms."

How many Americans has the US government killed?

I deduce the tenor of your interrogatory.
You're trying to draw a moral equivalency. Perhaps by ratio of per capita corpses. I think the differences rule.
- Chairman Mao's a legendary commie.
- The peasants weren't starving before Mao's reforms. So Mao took from them what they needed to get by. I'm trying to think of an apt example of U.S. government doing that. Got one in mind? Slavery?

You mean like Hitler's?

I didn't have Hitler in mind when I typed that.
Now that you mention it S2, I'd exclude political partisanship like the Nazi party. Why? Because there are political parties that don't cause much mayhem, the Greens come to mind, I think there was a marijuana party in NY for a while (wonder what happened to it since rec-doobie got the green light here).
What I mean is, there's politics even when the big role of government is filling roadway potholes. That seems to be an unusual trait of death-cause ideologies. I understand the religious counter, that humans have an innate need of religion. Perhaps. I still think politics may be different.
We can count political ones, but leave an asterisk *.

Maybe we shouldn't count political parties unless it reaches an appropriate carnage threshold. What am I missing here?

 

[mark mywords]

Fact is, the church had been preaching that "the Jews killed Jesus"

well they did!

You're trying to draw a moral equivalency

Not at all, every country has needlessly killed its citizens some kill more than others, the methods of slaughter vary but the victims are every bit as dead

The peasants weren't starving before Mao's reforms.

No they werent, but neither was America before the The Homestead Act of 1862, which provided settlers with 160 acres of public land, was followed by the Kinkaid Act of 1904 and the Enlarged Homestead Act of 1909. all of which which encouraged novice and wanna be farmers to plough up land that was unsuitable for being ploughed, they were told that "the rains would follow the plough" they didnt and the result was the dust bowl the great depression and for many death.

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

well they did!

Oh my. You are an anti-semite too.

Quite a bouquet you got there.

 

[mark mywords]

Oh my. You are an anti-semite too.

no just honestly reporting what the New Testament says,

You might find Mark chapter 15 informative or is citing the NT also considered antisemitic?
(Matthew 27 and Luke 23 cover the same stuff and say the same thing - I was the JEWISH priests that accused him it was the JEWISH priests that handed him over and it was the JEWISH crowd that refused to pardon him when given the chance to do Pilate approved the crucifixion to appease the Jews and symbolically washed his hands of the issue putting the responsibility on the JEWS).

Does any of that mean that Jews are evil or starting fires with space lasers? No, it just means that they were responsible for killing Christ

 

[sear]

For Stephen Colbert fans, from CBS The Late Show:

Colbert interviewed Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Maggie Haberman, who has published a 500 page character study of Donal Trump.



Haberman:
"I don't think it's responsible to ignore it. I do think it's responsible to contextualize it."
... "It was incredibly cynical politics. ... We all thought we were fact-checking him [Trump] and in fact we were just spreading this further."
Colbert:
"So if you shouldn't ignore him, and what he's saying are lies, but by checking the lies you repeat the lies, and drive them into people's heads, so they forget that their lies and only remember the accusations, what's left?"
"At this point we can't ignore him." Haberman

From the back cover: "This is the book Trump fears most."

I have not read the book.
But Ms Haberman is an insightful, intelligent, articulate interviewee.
Those that want a candid peek into Donald Trump's personality, and behind the scenes events, this book is worth a read.