3 ms·

Have you seen "Baraka"? When it shows people living like sardines, and chicken being put on conveyor belts having their beaks singed off.. how equal do things h

Have you seen "Baraka"? When it shows people living like sardines, and chicken being put on conveyor belts having their beaks singed off.. how equal do things have to be so they can be compared? Yes, the Nazis were clearly different in their hatred and their torture. Yet when I see chicken in darkness and tiny cages, I do get a similar vibe, that is, some of what appals me about concentration camps, is also present there. Sentient beings suffering in cages for the supposed benefit of others. One is apathic, the other hateful, one is towards animals, the other towards humans ( = the animal we most closely identify with), but otherwise..? Take this statement for example: "[..] if one is in touch with one's own unconscious reality, I think one would have to admit that in all of us there is a piece of Eichmann, and if you ask why, on what basis do I say this, then I would ask you wether you have lost your appetite when you read that in India people were starving, or wether you have gone on eating. As soon as you have not lost your appetite, when you knew other people were starving, then your heart has hardened, and in principle, you have done the same which Eichmann did." -- Erich Fromm ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psVNR51ctdc&t=33m28s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psVNR51ctdc&t=33m28s ) Do you find this offensive too, or do you agree he has a point? I think the key concept here and elsewhere is "in principle".

Nursie 13y ago
What marvellous hyperbole! Absolutely, if you read about starving people and don't stop eating, that must be much the same as planning and executing a racially motivated campaign of genocide! I don't think it's offensive. I think it's ridiculous, and no, not the same in principle at all.
- PavlovsCat 13y ago
  What is ridiculous is what arrives on your end, not what is originally sent out. > "don't stop eating" He said "lost your appetite". > "that must be much the same as" This might be new for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy
  - Nursie 13y ago
    >> He said "lost your appetite". There is little difference there. Stopping eating would be a natural consequence of losing your appetite. >> This might be new for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy Except that both you and he say in principle it is the same as what Eichmann did, and I disagree, vehemently, because it's ridiculous to compare the actions of Eichmann to whether or not someone loses their appetite when they hear of hunger in the world. One is deliberate genocide, the other is an arbitrary demand that you lose your appetite in sympathy. --edit-- What I do find offensive is your childish posting of links to the wikipedia page on analogies.
    - PavlovsCat 13y ago
      > There is little difference there, stopping eating would be a natural consequence of losing your appetite. No, it is the difference between eating with joy and eating because you're hungry, and also the difference between getting the point and completely missing it. > it's ridiculous to compare the actions of Eichmann to whether or not someone loses their appetite when they hear of hunger in the world Are you even familiar with Eichmann? Your statements ("deliberate Genocide") make it clear you're simply not getting the point Fromm is making. Eichmann "just" followed his orders, he lacked empathy, but he didn't so much care about genocide as about being a good bureaucrat. To go from "Eichmann" to "Nazi" and from there to any aspect of the Nazis you equate them with, instead of going by what Fromm means in context, is such a waste of time. You're offended over your own strawman. If you heat something by 0.5 degrees celsius, or 500000000 degrees, is the same, "in principle". Of course, one is hardly noticeable, while the other explodes the solar system or something... that's why analogies are hard to follow sometimes. If there wasn't something you could point to and claim "Preposterous! There is a difference!", there would be no way to make an analogy in the first place. > What I do find offensive is your childish posting of links to the wikipedia page on analogies. Childish? You said he said it's "the same", so I felt it was warranted.
      - Nursie 13y ago
        >> No, it is the difference between eating with joy and eating because you're hungry, and also the difference between getting the point and completely missing it. So whether you eat on with no appetite or stop eating is the difference between whether you're as bad as a genocidal nazi or not? The distinction is trivial and beside the point. >> Are you even familiar with Eichmann? Your statements ("deliberate Genocide") make it clear you're simply not getting the point Fromm is making. Eichmann "just" followed his orders, he lacked empathy, but he didn't so much care about genocide as about being a good bureaucrat. To go from "Eichmann" to "Nazi" and from there to any aspect of the Nazis you equate them with, instead of going by what Fromm means in context, is such a waste of time. You're offended over your own strawman. Eichmann was directly involved in shipping tens or hundreds of thousands of Jewish people to Auschwitz. I'm not sure what's not Nazi or genocidal about that. Either way I didn't say I was offended, I said the comparison was hyperbolic to the point of the ridiculous. >> If you heat something by 0.5 degrees celsius, or 500000000 degrees, is the same, "in principle". You have not demonstrated that keeping your appetite and committing genocide start from the same principle, which you would need to do for your analogy to hold here. It's not a simple matter of degree. The first is a demand that someone show empathy in a specific way, which may or may not hold for all people. The second is one of the worst crimes against humanity we can think of. There is a difference in nature, motivation and scale here, not simply scale. >> Of course, one is hardly noticeable, while the other explodes the solar system or something... that's why analogies are hard to follow sometimes. The analogy isn't hard to follow, it's nonsense. >> If there wasn't something you could point to and claim "Preposterous! There is a difference!", there would be no way to make an analogy in the first place. But I can point to all parts of it, and say none of it is anything like what you're trying to compare it to. >> Childish? You said he said it's "the same", so I felt it was warranted. No, I said "much the same", not "the same". If we're going to play this game then maybe you should work on your reading comprehension before you decide to be condescending.

Nursie 13y ago

What marvellous hyperbole! Absolutely, if you read about starving people and don't stop eating, that must be much the same as planning and executing a racially motivated campaign of genocide! I don't think it's offensive. I think it's ridiculous, and no, not the same in principle at all.

PavlovsCat 13y ago
What is ridiculous is what arrives on your end, not what is originally sent out. > "don't stop eating" He said "lost your appetite". > "that must be much the same as" This might be new for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy
- Nursie 13y ago
  >> He said "lost your appetite". There is little difference there. Stopping eating would be a natural consequence of losing your appetite. >> This might be new for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy Except that both you and he say in principle it is the same as what Eichmann did, and I disagree, vehemently, because it's ridiculous to compare the actions of Eichmann to whether or not someone loses their appetite when they hear of hunger in the world. One is deliberate genocide, the other is an arbitrary demand that you lose your appetite in sympathy. --edit-- What I do find offensive is your childish posting of links to the wikipedia page on analogies.
  - PavlovsCat 13y ago
    > There is little difference there, stopping eating would be a natural consequence of losing your appetite. No, it is the difference between eating with joy and eating because you're hungry, and also the difference between getting the point and completely missing it. > it's ridiculous to compare the actions of Eichmann to whether or not someone loses their appetite when they hear of hunger in the world Are you even familiar with Eichmann? Your statements ("deliberate Genocide") make it clear you're simply not getting the point Fromm is making. Eichmann "just" followed his orders, he lacked empathy, but he didn't so much care about genocide as about being a good bureaucrat. To go from "Eichmann" to "Nazi" and from there to any aspect of the Nazis you equate them with, instead of going by what Fromm means in context, is such a waste of time. You're offended over your own strawman. If you heat something by 0.5 degrees celsius, or 500000000 degrees, is the same, "in principle". Of course, one is hardly noticeable, while the other explodes the solar system or something... that's why analogies are hard to follow sometimes. If there wasn't something you could point to and claim "Preposterous! There is a difference!", there would be no way to make an analogy in the first place. > What I do find offensive is your childish posting of links to the wikipedia page on analogies. Childish? You said he said it's "the same", so I felt it was warranted.
    - Nursie 13y ago
      >> No, it is the difference between eating with joy and eating because you're hungry, and also the difference between getting the point and completely missing it. So whether you eat on with no appetite or stop eating is the difference between whether you're as bad as a genocidal nazi or not? The distinction is trivial and beside the point. >> Are you even familiar with Eichmann? Your statements ("deliberate Genocide") make it clear you're simply not getting the point Fromm is making. Eichmann "just" followed his orders, he lacked empathy, but he didn't so much care about genocide as about being a good bureaucrat. To go from "Eichmann" to "Nazi" and from there to any aspect of the Nazis you equate them with, instead of going by what Fromm means in context, is such a waste of time. You're offended over your own strawman. Eichmann was directly involved in shipping tens or hundreds of thousands of Jewish people to Auschwitz. I'm not sure what's not Nazi or genocidal about that. Either way I didn't say I was offended, I said the comparison was hyperbolic to the point of the ridiculous. >> If you heat something by 0.5 degrees celsius, or 500000000 degrees, is the same, "in principle". You have not demonstrated that keeping your appetite and committing genocide start from the same principle, which you would need to do for your analogy to hold here. It's not a simple matter of degree. The first is a demand that someone show empathy in a specific way, which may or may not hold for all people. The second is one of the worst crimes against humanity we can think of. There is a difference in nature, motivation and scale here, not simply scale. >> Of course, one is hardly noticeable, while the other explodes the solar system or something... that's why analogies are hard to follow sometimes. The analogy isn't hard to follow, it's nonsense. >> If there wasn't something you could point to and claim "Preposterous! There is a difference!", there would be no way to make an analogy in the first place. But I can point to all parts of it, and say none of it is anything like what you're trying to compare it to. >> Childish? You said he said it's "the same", so I felt it was warranted. No, I said "much the same", not "the same". If we're going to play this game then maybe you should work on your reading comprehension before you decide to be condescending.