About 5yr. log retention

[James A. Donald]

     --
James A. Donald:
 > > Killing several million Jews is murderous because killing Jews
 > > merely for being Jewish is like killing me, therefore someone who
 > > liquidates the Jews is likely to kill me, someone who favors
 > > rendering society Jew free is likely to kill me if he had the
 > > power.
 > >
 > > Similarly anyone who thinks that Stalin was too soft on the kulaks
 > > (read the various commie criticisms of Stalin) would certainly
 > > kill me if he had the power, for the same reasons as he would kill
 > > the kulaks.

Tom Vogt
 > all along we've been talking about "evil". suddenly, in your two
 > examples above, the word doesn't appear anymore.

The word murder does appear.  Murder is defined as "wrongful killing.", 
hence is by definition a particular kind of evil.  Indeed it is the 
archetypal example of evil, the type specimen of evil.

The point is that to know whether a killing indicates the killer is likely 
to kill me, I have to make a moral judgement of the killing, to determine 
that the killing is morally similar to killing me.

Trotsky thought that killing political enemies of the bolsheviks was 
different from killing Trotsky.  He was wrong.

Conversely people who believe that the Vietnam war was an evil act of 
aggression are likely to erroneously believe that Vietnam veterans are 
dangerous people, whereas people who have a more balanced view of the 
Vietnam war have a more accurate perception of Vietnam veterans.

Tom Vogt:
 > > > you are changing the meaning of "we" without noticing it. in the
 > > > 2nd paragraph, "we" means pretty much everyone. in the third,
 > > > "we" is much smaller. for example, the nazis would certainly
 > > > have agreed to calling iron "eisen" (the german word for
 > > > "iron"). however, they didn't call the mass murdering of jews
 > > > that.

  James A. Donald:
 > > Then they were wrong, just as they would have been wrong had they
 > > called iron copper.

  Tom Vogt:
 > but the point is that the one point can be settled, the other not.

Surely the events of the twentieth century settled the matter 
decisively.  Those who believe otherwise are monsters or fools, knaves or 
dupes.  When people die as a result of their error, others should learn.

 > it's hard to maintain that iron is copper in face of all evidence.
 > it seems to be very easy to continue believing that "only a dead
 > indian/jew/arab/american/nip/whatever is a good one" even if the
 > whole world is convinced otherwise.

If this was so, why do regimes that propagate evil ideas find it so vital 
to control all sources of information?  Their hostility to empirical 
evidence, their hostility to the mere act of paying attention to empirical 
evidence, shows that it is not so easy to maintain false moral beliefs in 
the face of the evidence, shows that most people can not only easily cross 
the is-ought gap, but scarcely refrain from doing so.

Anyone who propagates false moral beliefs also propagates false emprical 
claims supporting those false moral beliefs -- hence for example the 
continual debates where Marxists claim that Marx's predictions are coming 
true.  If there was an is ought gap, they would find it unnecessary to so 
tightly couple moral and factual claims.

 > > And evidence that they were wrong is that a great many of them
 > > died of that error, for nazis killed more nazis than they did
 > > commies, just as the commies killed more commies than they did
 > > nazis, something that anyone could have foreseen had he recognized
 > > that killing Jews was murder, that killing capitalists for being
 > > capitalists was murder.

 > if dying for your belief proves you wrong,

But they did not die for their beliefs.  Had they died fighting jews they 
would of died for their beliefs.  Instead they were killed by their fellow 
nazis.

 > but you're playing bait&switch again. you're moving from evil to
 > wrong to murderous as it pleases your argument.

Evil, wrong, and murderous are not different categories.  "Murderous" is 
the classic example of evil, and when I talk of "wrong" I say that the 
Trotsky's moral judgements were in error.

 > > It really is murder, really is capricious and unreasonable
 > > killing, and hence it really is indicative of propensity to kill
 > > people capriciously, which is why we feel about murder as we do,
 > > feel that it is wrong.

 > so? I don't understand why you're arguing at length for something
 > that's never been questioned. the point is that calling this "evil"
 > is a subjective point and that there is no such thing as "objective
 > evil".

Those who are aware of the existence of objective evil predicted that the 
nazis and the commies would murder friend and enemy alike.  Those blind to 
this obvious fact failed to make that prediction.

     --digsig
          James A. Donald
      6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
      z9OF8tAFvxs87kvxsMf4W5TXyaYXwPPjl3mFaQ8z
      4QqcZRNgYRTRscDdm+ybXHDBw13zxicQPiIhHcz7f