4 ms·

Nazi's had very similar logic to yours.

by hemantv 12y ago

davidw 12y ago
Aaaaand here's exhibit #1393 for "why political articles on HN should be flagged out of existence".
- geographomics 12y ago
  It's a valid and appropriate comparison, given that the OP is essentially promoting the Nuremberg defense.
  - davidw 12y ago
    Any article and ensuing discussion that degrades into who is or is not behaving like Nazis in less than 2 hours is one that should be removed ASAP. Edit: I don't give a shit who is "right". My point is that any discussion that degrades this badly should not be here. Go somewhere else to discuss this stuff.
    - DanielBMarkham 12y ago
      Apologies. I'd delete my comment, but there's too many responses by now. A lot of times we disagree, but this is not one of them. If we're off in Nazi territory, there's no constructive conversation to be had. I knew it'd be sensitive, but I had no idea.
    - geographomics 12y ago
      As we are discussing the immoral actions of a government and its agents, most notably imprisonment without trial in military-run camps, in which inmates are tortured based on instructions from the top of the hierarchy - this has clear parallels with some of the actions of Nazi Germany. To compare this behaviour is not 'degrading' the conversation at all, on the contrary it's quite relevant to compare and contrast.
      - davidw 12y ago
        > As we are discussing the immoral actions of a government and its agents And that's exactly why it's off topic. It's politics.
    - okal 12y ago
      Are Nazi analogies to be rejected out of hand, even when grounded in fact? How does this hurt the conversation, in your view?
      - davidw 12y ago
        Politics are off topic here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6120530 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6120530 You have the whole internet to talk about politics - do you really need to wreck this site with this stuff? Also, haven't you people ever heard of Godwin's law?
        geographomics 12y ago
        That link is about appropriate submissions, not the comments below the submissions. As this article has already been upvoted over 200 times (implying some interest from hackers), trying to stifle further discussion is rather a lost cause.
        okal 12y ago
        The guidelines don't unequivocally support your position, IMHO. Your comment, though, makes a good case for it. I'll stop now, since this is getting off-topic, but I appreciate you taking the time to clarify your stand. EDIT: I think everyone on HN has heard of Godwin's Law. It's useful, but can also be a lazy way to quash meaningful discussion.
        davidw 12y ago
        Honest question: on average, how much "meaningful discussion" happens after you make a Nazi comparison, even if you happen to be correct?
        okal 12y ago
        On average? Not a lot, I'd imagine. But it occasionally will. This tangent we've gone on off on, for example, though I'm not sure you'd agree. I think @hemantv's assertion would have served the discussion better had it been framed as a question: "Isn't this a lot like the Nuremberg defense?", for example.
    - woah 12y ago
      Government agents kidnapped, rape, beat, tortured, and killed innocent people. This is pretty similar to what the nazis did and it is a fair comparison.
gizmo686 12y ago
And Justice Douglass (from the US supreme court) agreed with that: "I thought at the time and still think that the Nuremberg trials were unprincipled, Law was created ex post facto to suit the passion and clamor of the time." [1] Ex post facto is also explicitly forbidden by the US consitution (Article 1, sections 9, 10) [2], and by the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 11, section 2) [3]. On a technical level, you can argue that torture was already illegal under US law, however the torturers were advised by agents of the State that what they were doing was legal, so ex-post-facto could very reasonably apply. There may be people high up on the chain of command who can be prosecuted under US law, but for the most part prosecutions would have to go through international law. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials#cite_ref-reappraisal_95-0 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials#cite_ref-reapp... [2] http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_trans... [3] http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
- woah 12y ago
  So you're saying that anything done by the state should be legal, and if you have a problem then you should apply diplomatic (ultimately military) pressure? Sounds like a recipe for atrocities and then war (like in nazi Germany). It's unfortunate that the high level sociopaths will probably get away with it, but we should still prosecute the lower level sociopaths who did the torturing. This will make it hard to order people to do this in the future. Ask yourself two questions: Is it ok to kidnap someone, lock them in your basement, beat them and rape them? Does some shit written on a piece of paper make it ok?
  - gizmo686 12y ago
    I am saying that if the state said something is legal, it should not then prosecute people for having done it while the state was saying it is legal. If you have a problem with what another state is doing (and you are a state), then you should apply diplomatic/military pressure; I do not know what other recourse you have. In this case, what was done is illegal under international law, and was illegal under international law at the time it was done, so people can be tried in international court without ex post facto concerns. I am one of those people who disagree with the Nuremberg trials. If something atrocious happened, but was legal, then we should make it illegal and accept the fact that some people got away with doing horrible things.

Nazi's had very similar logic to yours.

by hemantv 12y ago

Nazi's had very similar logic to yours.

davidw 12y ago

Aaaaand here's exhibit #1393 for "why political articles on HN should be flagged out of existence".

geographomics 12y ago
It's a valid and appropriate comparison, given that the OP is essentially promoting the Nuremberg defense.
- davidw 12y ago
  Any article and ensuing discussion that degrades into who is or is not behaving like Nazis in less than 2 hours is one that should be removed ASAP. Edit: I don't give a shit who is "right". My point is that any discussion that degrades this badly should not be here. Go somewhere else to discuss this stuff.
  - DanielBMarkham 12y ago
    Apologies. I'd delete my comment, but there's too many responses by now. A lot of times we disagree, but this is not one of them. If we're off in Nazi territory, there's no constructive conversation to be had. I knew it'd be sensitive, but I had no idea.
  - geographomics 12y ago
    As we are discussing the immoral actions of a government and its agents, most notably imprisonment without trial in military-run camps, in which inmates are tortured based on instructions from the top of the hierarchy - this has clear parallels with some of the actions of Nazi Germany. To compare this behaviour is not 'degrading' the conversation at all, on the contrary it's quite relevant to compare and contrast.
    - davidw 12y ago
      > As we are discussing the immoral actions of a government and its agents And that's exactly why it's off topic. It's politics.
  - okal 12y ago
    Are Nazi analogies to be rejected out of hand, even when grounded in fact? How does this hurt the conversation, in your view?
    - davidw 12y ago
      Politics are off topic here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6120530 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6120530 You have the whole internet to talk about politics - do you really need to wreck this site with this stuff? Also, haven't you people ever heard of Godwin's law?
      - geographomics 12y ago
        That link is about appropriate submissions, not the comments below the submissions. As this article has already been upvoted over 200 times (implying some interest from hackers), trying to stifle further discussion is rather a lost cause.
      - okal 12y ago
        The guidelines don't unequivocally support your position, IMHO. Your comment, though, makes a good case for it. I'll stop now, since this is getting off-topic, but I appreciate you taking the time to clarify your stand. EDIT: I think everyone on HN has heard of Godwin's Law. It's useful, but can also be a lazy way to quash meaningful discussion.
        davidw 12y ago
        Honest question: on average, how much "meaningful discussion" happens after you make a Nazi comparison, even if you happen to be correct?
        okal 12y ago
        On average? Not a lot, I'd imagine. But it occasionally will. This tangent we've gone on off on, for example, though I'm not sure you'd agree. I think @hemantv's assertion would have served the discussion better had it been framed as a question: "Isn't this a lot like the Nuremberg defense?", for example.
  - woah 12y ago
    Government agents kidnapped, rape, beat, tortured, and killed innocent people. This is pretty similar to what the nazis did and it is a fair comparison.

gizmo686 12y ago

And Justice Douglass (from the US supreme court) agreed with that: "I thought at the time and still think that the Nuremberg trials were unprincipled, Law was created ex post facto to suit the passion and clamor of the time." [1] Ex post facto is also explicitly forbidden by the US consitution (Article 1, sections 9, 10) [2], and by the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 11, section 2) [3]. On a technical level, you can argue that torture was already illegal under US law, however the torturers were advised by agents of the State that what they were doing was legal, so ex-post-facto could very reasonably apply. There may be people high up on the chain of command who can be prosecuted under US law, but for the most part prosecutions would have to go through international law. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials#cite_ref-reappraisal_95-0 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials#cite_ref-reapp... [2] http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_trans... [3] http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

woah 12y ago
So you're saying that anything done by the state should be legal, and if you have a problem then you should apply diplomatic (ultimately military) pressure? Sounds like a recipe for atrocities and then war (like in nazi Germany). It's unfortunate that the high level sociopaths will probably get away with it, but we should still prosecute the lower level sociopaths who did the torturing. This will make it hard to order people to do this in the future. Ask yourself two questions: Is it ok to kidnap someone, lock them in your basement, beat them and rape them? Does some shit written on a piece of paper make it ok?
- gizmo686 12y ago
  I am saying that if the state said something is legal, it should not then prosecute people for having done it while the state was saying it is legal. If you have a problem with what another state is doing (and you are a state), then you should apply diplomatic/military pressure; I do not know what other recourse you have. In this case, what was done is illegal under international law, and was illegal under international law at the time it was done, so people can be tried in international court without ex post facto concerns. I am one of those people who disagree with the Nuremberg trials. If something atrocious happened, but was legal, then we should make it illegal and accept the fact that some people got away with doing horrible things.