3 ms·

That may be but the comparison is obviously a shock and awe type exaggeration. By virtue of Nazis being people that also did normal things you could bring it up

That may be but the comparison is obviously a shock and awe type exaggeration. By virtue of Nazis being people that also did normal things you could bring it up in any discussion. But would you? Would you tell someone encouraging "the troops" that they're no different from Nazi supporters? It's the exaggeration that's the problem here. The same kind of exaggeration you hear when certain politicians scream "you are protecting terrorists and pedophiles!" to argue against encryption.

llukas 8y ago
> also being people also doing normal things If you are cog in a machine then you still responsible for final outcome even if you only did "normal things". Read book referenced below, maybe you'll change your mind and refrain from such comments https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18067690 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18067690 https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/25530963-soldiers https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/25530963-soldiers
- close04 8y ago
  @braythwayt considered an engineer following orders to implement an unethical (illegal?) "feature" is directly comparable to Nazis following orders to commit genocide. Even in principle. But... The Nuremberg Principles define War Crimes. It's quite literally what they're for. Do you not understand this massive difference? All laws take magnitude into consideration. Look at the jurisprudence. It's all related to acts far above what's being discussed here. But if you really really want to draw the parallel between a "regular" act and a the kind of crimes that see this principle applied then keep this in mind [0]: > An individual must be involved at the policy-making level to be culpable for a crime against peace ... the ordinary foot soldier is not expected to make his or her own personal assessment as to the legality of a conflict. Similarly, such an individual cannot be held criminally responsible for fighting in support of an illegal war, assuming that his or her personal war-time conduct is otherwise proper You're both conveniently ignoring the fact that this defense was attempted mostly by generals, captains, field marshals. Foot soldiers were never on the same footing as the superiors. Not in the execution of their duties, not in taking responsibility. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders#Legal_proceedings_of_Jeremy_Hinzman_in_Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders#Legal_proceedi...
  - llukas 8y ago
    Focus is only if Nurnberg principle IV can apply to corporation/employee (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_principles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_principles): "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him." Nobody tries to pull Nazis in any other context except you. Relation to "normal things" is that in '30 Germany process of making genocide a "normal thing" happened. This similar as with Google under process of changing their ways from "do no evil" to privacy consuming profit first corporation. It doesn't happening overnight - and is using similar mechanisms. I don't see any argument from you that would invalidate claim that those two situations are similar.

llukas 8y ago

> also being people also doing normal things If you are cog in a machine then you still responsible for final outcome even if you only did "normal things". Read book referenced below, maybe you'll change your mind and refrain from such comments https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18067690 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18067690 https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/25530963-soldiers https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/25530963-soldiers

close04 8y ago
@braythwayt considered an engineer following orders to implement an unethical (illegal?) "feature" is directly comparable to Nazis following orders to commit genocide. Even in principle. But... The Nuremberg Principles define War Crimes. It's quite literally what they're for. Do you not understand this massive difference? All laws take magnitude into consideration. Look at the jurisprudence. It's all related to acts far above what's being discussed here. But if you really really want to draw the parallel between a "regular" act and a the kind of crimes that see this principle applied then keep this in mind [0]: > An individual must be involved at the policy-making level to be culpable for a crime against peace ... the ordinary foot soldier is not expected to make his or her own personal assessment as to the legality of a conflict. Similarly, such an individual cannot be held criminally responsible for fighting in support of an illegal war, assuming that his or her personal war-time conduct is otherwise proper You're both conveniently ignoring the fact that this defense was attempted mostly by generals, captains, field marshals. Foot soldiers were never on the same footing as the superiors. Not in the execution of their duties, not in taking responsibility. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders#Legal_proceedings_of_Jeremy_Hinzman_in_Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders#Legal_proceedi...
- llukas 8y ago
  Focus is only if Nurnberg principle IV can apply to corporation/employee (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_principles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_principles): "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him." Nobody tries to pull Nazis in any other context except you. Relation to "normal things" is that in '30 Germany process of making genocide a "normal thing" happened. This similar as with Google under process of changing their ways from "do no evil" to privacy consuming profit first corporation. It doesn't happening overnight - and is using similar mechanisms. I don't see any argument from you that would invalidate claim that those two situations are similar.