4 ms·

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

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.
    - PavlovsCat 13y ago
      > 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. He would have shipped tens of hundreds of refugees out of Germany if he had happened to be a bureaucrat for the allies and if that had been his job. But where did I say that's not genocidal or Nazi? I said that's not the point of why Fromm is making the comparison - lack of empathy is. He doesn't mean if we don't loose our appetite when others starve, we grow round glasses and and clothes from the 40s, and many other things. He doesn't mean we will start putting people in box cars. To ridicule my supposed lack of reading comprehension considering this whole string of completely useless attacks on strawmen, is kinda rich. I don't know if you clicked the link, but he goes on to say: I don't think, that if we are really in touch with the inner reality of ourselves, that there is any crime, or perhaps any virtue, which we cannot discover in ourselves. We shut ourselves [off] from the awareness of our inner reality, we project the evil to our opponents and enemies, and believe that the good is in ourselves; indidivually, nationally, and group-wise in general. Your reaction that Eichmann is completely beyond the pale of any comparison is kinda fitting. > 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. The second is also "not showing empathy in a specific way". And no, I do not want to play games. > There is a difference in nature, motivation and scale here, not simply scale. I acknowledged that before. But that doesn't change the fact that it consists of many aspects, one of them lack of empathy.

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.
  - PavlovsCat 13y ago
    > 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. He would have shipped tens of hundreds of refugees out of Germany if he had happened to be a bureaucrat for the allies and if that had been his job. But where did I say that's not genocidal or Nazi? I said that's not the point of why Fromm is making the comparison - lack of empathy is. He doesn't mean if we don't loose our appetite when others starve, we grow round glasses and and clothes from the 40s, and many other things. He doesn't mean we will start putting people in box cars. To ridicule my supposed lack of reading comprehension considering this whole string of completely useless attacks on strawmen, is kinda rich. I don't know if you clicked the link, but he goes on to say: I don't think, that if we are really in touch with the inner reality of ourselves, that there is any crime, or perhaps any virtue, which we cannot discover in ourselves. We shut ourselves [off] from the awareness of our inner reality, we project the evil to our opponents and enemies, and believe that the good is in ourselves; indidivually, nationally, and group-wise in general. Your reaction that Eichmann is completely beyond the pale of any comparison is kinda fitting. > 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. The second is also "not showing empathy in a specific way". And no, I do not want to play games. > There is a difference in nature, motivation and scale here, not simply scale. I acknowledged that before. But that doesn't change the fact that it consists of many aspects, one of them lack of empathy.