interesting you mention justiceQuote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
ironically justice does not believe in vengeance taking the law to its own hand is an offence
it goes against its defence
Printable View
interesting you mention justiceQuote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
ironically justice does not believe in vengeance taking the law to its own hand is an offence
it goes against its defence
As I noted earlier, that goes against the actual definition of vengeance: ""punishment inflicted in retaliation for an injury or offense." Once you start re-defining the term, everyone in the discussion is free to re-define it--and "justice"--as well. One could say vengeance seems like the highest form of justice, and their definition would be as legitimate as yours since both of you have rejected the actual definition. If you want the discussion to actually be about "vengeance," and not just everybody's subjective imaginings of the word, you need to substantially adhere to the actual definition.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
P.s. Although it's clear you loved Furious 7, you can reference other texts as examples...;)
Justice does not "believe" anything; it is a concept to which we choose, or choose not to, adhere. And, as I mentioned before, for many people throughout history--including today--vengeance was/is the only available mode of justice. One could not seek out a governing third party for justice for a wrongdoing suffered at the hands of a member of another tribe. And as I mentioned above, there is often no possible third party arbiter providing justice for personal wrongdoings between individuals; vengeance again is one of the only means for justice.Quote:
Originally Posted by cacian
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lokasenna
Yes, come back Bounty. You're opinion is important to us. Most of us aren't even reading the troll at this point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calidore
Works for me. Don't feed a troll. Even giving him this much attention is too much, in my opinion. Starve narcissists of attention and they usually seek greener pastures.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lokasenna
So on that note, on with the show:
Thanks for starting this thread, Lokasenna. I've been reading it for the last few days and giving it some thought. Then in the evenings, I typically subject myself to the Evening News, which, when it is not about puppies being rescued from drainage pipes by children with leukemia, tends to be about the Middle East. Last night I saw a Yemenese man standing in front of a bombed out building with a discreetly positioned (from the Network's point of view) corpse of a child a few paces behind him. The man was yelling emotionally at the camera, addressing the new king of Saudi Arabia, and vowing to take his revenge. It made me wonder if he would be successful, and who would then inherit the "prerogative" of vengeance; and after that, then what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lokasenna
Then it struck me that a missing component of this conversation has been a consideration of the consequences of acting on vengeful feelings; especially in consideration of escalating cycles of revenge, perhaps in consideration of Gandhi's famous remark about an eye for an eye making the whole world blind. And even Gandhi was hardly being just, since the principle of "an eye for an eye" as originally codified in Mesopotamia was itself intended to end cycles of family blood feuding by providing a standard law.
Don't think, by the way, that I am naive about Gandhi--I'm not. But I must say, as a middle aged Man, I have seen in even my short life a bloody cycle in which people who wanted to murder thousands in planes and buildings, motivated by a perceived prerogative for revenge; followed by a war against people who were uninvolved, hugely popular in the beginning due (whatever excuses were contrived at the time) to a perceived prerogative for vengeance for those events; followed by a radical insurgency that is presently murdering religious minorities en mass, beheading hostages with knives on Youtube, burning at least one prisoner of war alive, etc., with the foot soldiers at least motivated by the way Western treatment of Muslims has been portrayed to them; followed by what? Very likely a Shi'ite genocide against Sunni Muslims in response to the current troubles. And that, obviously, is the barest possible schematic; there are many more trajectories of perceived prerogatives for vengeance at play.
So I guess my first question is: how much do we really want to live in 10th century Scandinavia? :) My second question would be something about the greater historical perspective of revanchism and the effects it had in Europe from the Napoleonic era to the Holocaust; but I'm off for a salad with hummus at the moment.
Now, Pomp Bum is another ignoree. My putting him on my ignore list was neither vengeance nor justice; he just so fit the qualifications of my list I mentioned earlier.
Hammurabi's code was little more than institutionalized vengeance, and as far from justice as possible, e.g. an architect's family could be killed for an error he made.
To quote Hamlet, 'Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping?'
True, but beside the point. The intention of the code was to end blood feuding that was causing internal weakness in the face of dangerous neighbors. My point was that Gandhi's position lacked historical perspective, not that Hammurabi's laws were humane. In fact, I don't even think I mentioned that law code. It wasn't the only or even the first attempt at a law code in Mesopotamia, contrary to what one often hears.
Also, sorry to bump my post from the last page, but in case anyone else feels like responding:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lokasenna
Yes, come back Bounty. You're opinion is important to us. Most of us aren't even reading the troll at this point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calidore
Works for me. Don't feed a troll. Even giving him this much attention is too much, in my opinion. Starve narcissists of attention and they usually seek greener pastures.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lokasenna
So on that note, on with the show:
Thanks for starting this thread, Lokasenna. I've been reading it for the last few days and giving it some thought. Then in the evenings, I typically subject myself to the Evening News, which, when it is not about puppies being rescued from drainage pipes by children with leukemia, tends to be about the Middle East. Last night I saw a Yemenese man standing in front of a bombed out building with a discreetly positioned (from the Network's point of view) corpse of a child a few paces behind him. The man was yelling emotionally at the camera, addressing the new king of Saudi Arabia, and vowing to take his revenge. It made me wonder if he would be successful, and who would then inherit the "prerogative" of vengeance; and after that, then what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lokasenna
Then it struck me that a missing component of this conversation has been a consideration of the consequences of acting on vengeful feelings; especially in consideration of escalating cycles of revenge, perhaps in consideration of Gandhi's famous remark about an eye for an eye making the whole world blind. And even Gandhi was hardly being just, since the principle of "an eye for an eye" as originally codified in Mesopotamia was itself intended to end cycles of family blood feuding by providing a standard law.
Don't think, by the way, that I am naive about Gandhi--I'm not. But I must say, as a middle aged Man, I have seen in even my short life a bloody cycle in which people who wanted to murder thousands in planes and buildings, motivated by a perceived prerogative for revenge; followed by a war against people who were uninvolved, hugely popular in the beginning due (whatever excuses were contrived at the time) to a perceived prerogative for vengeance for those events; followed by a radical insurgency that is presently murdering religious minorities en mass, beheading hostages with knives on Youtube, burning at least one prisoner of war alive, etc., with the foot soldiers at least motivated by the way Western treatment of Muslims has been portrayed to them; followed by what? Very likely a Shi'ite genocide against Sunni Muslims in response to the current troubles. And that, obviously, is the barest possible schematic; there are many more trajectories of perceived prerogatives for vengeance at play.
So I guess my first question is: how much do we really want to live in 10th century Scandinavia? :) My second question would be something about the greater historical perspective of revanchism and the effects it had in Europe from the Napoleonic era to the Holocaust; but I'm off for a salad with hummus at the moment.
do youmean to sayQuote:
Originally Posted by Pike Bishop
there is no justice
it does not exist which in this case i agree
the law is a way to make money
it is not interested in what people are or what they have to say
it is evident to me
can i ask who that is in your avatar picture?
"Quote:
Originally Posted by cacian
No, I meant to say exactly what I said: "Justice does not "believe" anything; it is a concept to which we choose, or choose not to, adhere"...which is true. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It means it only materially exists if people bring it into material reality and adhere to it enough to maintain its existence.
As to my avatar picture, it is a picture of Paul Auster, one of the best American Postmodern novelists--and best American novelists--of the last 50 years...as well as one of the best English translators of Mallarme.
I am not read of him but he does look interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pike Bishop
do you have a favourite story of him?
His greatest novel, New York Trilogy, is a brilliant intermingling of three novellas/short stories into one central text. If you want to try something a bit less challenging, his linear novel The Music of Chance is also brilliant. It is not quite the masterpiece New York Trilogy is, but is an elegantly written and crafted book.
Best American novelists of the last 50 years?.. I enjoyed Moon Palace, but that was about it. The other book I read of his, forget the title, and a short story in either the Atlantic or perhaps The New Yorker was so emo I had to suppress my gag reflex.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pike Bishop
Auster is definitely one of the best American novelists of the last 50 years. The New York Trilogy, The Music of Chance, In the Country of Last Things, The Book of Illusions, Oracle Night, The Brooklyn Follies, and even the lesser Moon Palace are all brilliant. Leviathan and Mr. Vertigo were solid novels as well. Judging him on the small sample you had is like condemning James for The Princess Casamassima, Faulkner for The Reivers and Soldier's Pay, and Melville for Mardi.
You clearly have a clear idea of what constitutes the best American novelists of the last 50 years. So, what are your standards in determining who those authors are, and who do you think meets those qualifications and why? I hope you based those evaluations on more than one book and one short story you so eloquently deemed "emo"...;)
everyone---I appreciate your encouragement and invitation back, thank you...
this is making me think of when a woman's "honor" has somehow been violated and the menfolk practice some personal justice on the perpetrator---especially as civil and criminal law doesn't touch on the issue.Quote:
from ecurb: In certain cultures, vengeance can be seen the same way. It's a moral duty, restorative of justice and honor, rather than a personal vendetta.
I think this has an appeal to it, but I also know within Christian circles there are varied responses to the thought of physical confrontation (whether it be institutionalized war, or personal defense). the pacifistic religions come to mind--the quakers, Mennonites, church of the brethren, the amish.Quote:
from ecurb: ...but the tradition of the Christian knight suggests they are also called upon to defend the weak from oppression....Injustice is a state of separation from God, and Christians must try to be reconciled with and one with God. Hence, they should fight injustice.
im reminded of Gandhi who I believe was influenced by Christ in his nonviolent/passive (and successful) resistance of british oppression in india.
yet at the same time, there is this little story thats illustrative of the dual nature I think we have warring in us. there's a man who breaks into a quaker's house, bent on robbing it. he enters the kitchen and sees the quaker homeowner standing there with a rifle pointed at him and he says, "mister, I wouldn't harm thee for the world, but you happen to be standing right where im about to shoot my gun."
how all that is reconciled with "pray for those who persecute you" is a toughie!
I think that's insightful. the very act of forgiveness means you are giving up your "right" to inflict harm on the other person for the harm he has caused you. I can see it being really difficult to whup someone and then say right at the end, "okay, now I forgive you."Quote:
from lokasenna: Taking personal vengeance may very well be just, but once taken I would imagine it can be harder to move to a position of forgiveness
I think lokasenna has some insight into that when he says its a refusal to defer to authority.Quote:
from YesNo: Vengeance seems like a perversion of defense or justice, but I am unsure where the perversion lies.
yes, you can indeed speak in a personification like that.Quote:
from cacian: justice does not believe in vengeance taking the law to its own hand
I think this is especially true at the individual level. one wonders, short of being killed, how often the other person would say, "well, he certainly showed me what's what, I got what I deserved and I guess we'll be leaving it at that."Quote:
from pompey: especially in consideration of escalating cycles of revenge
this one is a whole lot tougher I think---we might have to propose an alternate universe where we have to answer the question, what might have been the better response as opposed to "followed by a war against people who were uninvolved, hugely popular in the beginning due...to a perceived prerogative for vengeance for those events...?"Quote:
from pompey: I have seen in even my short life a bloody cycle in which people who wanted to murder thousands in planes and buildings, motivated by a perceived prerogative for revenge...(and then you gave a short version of subsequent events)
which makes me think this though too---is there such a thing as institutional vengeance at the nation state level?
From Cacian: "justice does not believe in vengeance taking the law to its own hand."
You can speak in a personification about an abstract concept all you like, that doesn't change the fact "justice" is still an abstract concept which humans successfully or unsuccessfully bring into material reality. So, "justice" still doesn't believe in anything, and since nothing about the definition of "justice" inherently precludes vengeance, justice does not inherently reject vengeance and/or taking the law in one's own hand.Quote:
Originally Posted by bounty
A better response would have been to hunt down those people actually responsible for the attack.
The Lillehammer affair, and the whole Israel response to the Munich massacre is another good example of vengeance leading to plain injustice.
Quote:
In a February 2006 interview, former Mossad chief Zvi Zamir answered direct questions:
Was there no element of vengeance in the decision to take action against the terrorists?
"No. We were not engaged in vengeance. We are accused of having been guided by a desire for vengeance. That is nonsense. What we did was to concretely prevent in the future. We acted against those who thought that they would continue to perpetrate acts of terror. I am not saying that those who were involved in Munich were not marked for death. They definitely deserved to die. But we were not dealing with the past; we concentrated on the future."
Did you not receive a directive from Golda Meir along the lines of 'take revenge on those responsible for Munich?
"Golda abhorred the necessity that was imposed on us to carry out the operations. Golda never told me to 'take revenge on those who were responsible for Munich.' No one told me that."
The Israeli mission later became known as Operation Wrath of God or Mivtza Za'am Ha'El. Reeve quotes General Aharon Yariv—who, he writes, was the general overseer of the operation—as stating that after Munich the Israeli government felt it had no alternative but to exact justice.
We had no choice. We had to make them stop, and there was no other way ... we are not very proud about it. But it was a question of sheer necessity. We went back to the old biblical rule of an eye for an eye ... I approach these problems not from a moral point of view, but, hard as it may sound, from a cost-benefit point of view. If I'm very hard-headed, I can say, what is the political benefit in killing this person? Will it bring us nearer to peace? Will it bring us nearer to an understanding with the Palestinians or not? In most cases I don't think it will. But in the case of Black September we had no other choice and it worked. Is it morally acceptable? One can debate that question. Is it politically vital? It was.
Nobody's denying vengeance can't go wrong; it can. And hunting down those who initiated the Munich attack would have been vengeance, and justice, as well. I've only correctly claimed that much of what we consider justice does have an aspect of vengeance to it. Also, as I've said in my earlier posts, past and present tribal cultures--in all continents--only had, and some still only have, vengeance as a means of justice. When a member of one Plains Indian tribe killed a member of another one, there was no third-party governing body to administer justice. The members of the aggrieved tribe only had vengeance as a venue for justice.
This also, as I've noted earlier, applies to justice in personal relations as well. There are few governing "bodies" ready and able to administer justice to address a wrong between two people. It usually has to come from the aggrieved party his or herself. That doesn't always require vengeance, but savvy, thoughtful vengeance in these cases can bring justice without extensive damage to either side.
@North: I agree, although the modern state of Israel is hardly a model for overcoming spiraling cycles of retribution.
@Bounty: Thanks for coming back. I encourage you to continue ignoring rudeness and to enjoy talking here among friends. :)
I don't really buy the presumption that the human need for revenge is categorically different from what nation states or even terrorists organization do with it. I wonder if we can agree that the hunger for vengeance is a natural to the human condition (whether we actually take revenge or not). Then we can decide if we want to fully honor what God or evolution has given us (to live in 10th century Scandinavia, as it were), or turn ourselves (if we even can) fully or in part from our "default value" and try to live in some other way. For me that is the real issue.
10 Best Vengeance Scenes in Film:
1. Carrie: The prom scene
2. The Godfather: The baptism scene
3. Inglorious Basterds: The screening scene
4. Hard Candy: The roof scene
5. Unforgiven: The parlor scene
6. Pulp Fiction: The basement scene
7. Kill Bill 2: The trailer battle with Elle Driver
8. The Virgin Spring: The scene where the rejuvenating spring appears
9. Enter the Dragon: The mirror room scene where Bruce avenges his sister
10. John Wick: The final scene where John avenges his dog
10 Best Vengeance Scenes in Literature and High-End Fiction:
1. Macbeth: Where Macduff reveals he wasn't "of woman-born"...before he ices Macbeth.
2. Hamlet: Where Hamlet--finally--kills Claudius when he realizes he's out of time
3. Julius Caesar: Where Marc Antony delivers his brilliant funeral elegy sealing Brutus' and Cassius' fate
4. Titus Andronicus: Where Titus serves Tamora that special pie
5. The Libation Bearers: Where Orestes asks his existential query before dispatching his father's killer
6. The Golden Bowl: Where Densher realizes Milly has left him all her money, leaving him eternally guilt-ridden
7. The Cask of Amontillado: The cellar scene where Montresor proves to Fortunato he's no chump
8. A Storm of Swords: Where The Red Viper lethally poisons the Mountain--and crows about it--before his own brutal demise
9. The Secret Agent: Where the previously timid Mrs. Verloc repays her husband for his misuse of her brother
10. Dolores Claiborne: Where Dolores "repays" her husband for his years of violent abuse
Revenge might be part of our biology that encourages pair-bonding and defense of the groups we belong to. Unfortunately, we also can use our rationality to justify cruelty and violence which goes beyond what is necessary for defense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pompey Bum
One can become "defenseless" by taking some distance from what one feels the need to defend to ask if the defense is really in everyone's best interest. Some of the things we defend that are not worth defending as strongly as we might feel the need are our opinions or our "honor", whatever that is.
Pompey Bum: "Then we can decide if we want to fully honor what God or evolution has given us (to live in 10th century Scandinavia, as it were), or turn ourselves (if we even can) fully or in part from our "default value" and try to live in some other way."
First of all, this statement about human nature is dichotomous. If humans have the inherent ability to move away from a behavior/predilection, then "turning away" from it is as much of a "default value" as that predilection itself. So, neither activity stands "higher" than the other as far as primal predilections go.
Secondly, the statement is extremely culturally biased. As I noted earlier past and present tribal cultures have had no other means to attain justice for actions committed by members of opposing tribes than vengeance. So Pompey's claim--as quoted above by YesNo--inaccurately and condescendingly judges the use of vengeance necessary to those tribes as a "lower," "default" behavior, as opposed to the "higher" modes of justice available to more "civilized" cultures.
Quote:
from northstar: A better response would have been to hunt down those people actually responsible for the attack.
The Lillehammer affair, and the whole Israel response to the Munich massacre is another good example of vengeance leading to plain injustice.
some years ago I read one day in September, by simon reeve, which is all about that. its an interesting, yet sad read to say the least.
northstar, when you say "people actually responsible for the attack"---are you thinking of the masterminds (so to speak) who weren't necessarily in munich?
when you write "leading to plain injustice", are you meaning the innocent people who were mistakingly killed in Norway? what a horrible thing, can you imagine.
oh I absolutely buy into that...Quote:
from pompey: I wonder if we can agree that the hunger for vengeance is a natural to the human condition (whether we actually take revenge or not).
I agree...and for me, in part, that leads me to question whether or not I should be receiving vicarious pleasure from, or even reading, books (or watching movies) where vengeance is a prominent characteristic. I mentioned earlier, I still would cheer Beatrix kiddo and William Wallace---and jack reacher, and mitch rapp and practically every protagonist in zane grey (the grand daddy of western literature, that's right, literature) books.Quote:
Then we can decide if we want to fully honor what God or evolution has given us (to live in 10th century Scandinavia, as it were), or turn ourselves (if we even can) fully or in part from our "default value" and try to live in some other way. For me that is the real issue.
it makes for good reading and viewing...but one wonders if theres a cost, and what cost, associated with it...
I agree...I think one of our single greatest talents is self-justification...Quote:
from YesNo: Unfortunately, we also can use our rationality to justify cruelty and violence which goes beyond what is necessary for defense.
The higher and lower would depend on if one can find a way to value these two positions as such. I think one can find that valuation. Taking the path of vengeance leads to unhappiness, suffering and cycles of blame. That would be enough to make it lower.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pike Bishop
Having alternatives also imply that we can make choices.
You may think you can make that valuation for everyone, but you can't and have yet to prove otherwise. Not everybody shares your values or life experience. Vengeance doesn't always lead to unhappiness, suffering, and cycles of blame. Vengeance, in many of its forms, often leads to catharsis, gratification, expurgation, happiness, and peace of mind. I expounded on this in my post earlier in the thread:Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
"It's not that Manichean. Throughout human history, many--if not most--people, tribes, and cultures could not and/or did not receive justice from a governing third power. The only justice they could attain from a wrong was through personally or tribally inflicted vengeance. And while that vengeance could be "exacted from a purely emotional state," it very often wasn't. The definition of vengeance, by the way, is: "punishment inflicted in retaliation for an injury or offense." So, being exacted from a purely emotional state is not an inherent element of vengeance.
This applies to personal vengeance, where a governing third party is also usually not involved nor can be. For example, if our spouse or girlfriend/boyfriend cheats on us, emotional states will factor, but the act of vengeance to leave/break up with them can also be a rational one, as the aggrieved can no longer trust the cheater."
So, historically, many people have successfully resorted--and do successfully resort--to vengeance to attain justice and were/are happy with the result. Who are you to tell them they're wrong?
Whether other people share my view or not is irrelevant. Others are welcome to try to convince me that I'm wrong, but so far I have not been convinced.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pike Bishop
Of course its relevant, unless you actually think your view trumps everyone else's. You claimed: "The higher and lower would depend on if one can find a way to value these two positions as such. I think one can find that valuation"Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
Well, billions of people throughout history have happily resorted--and happily resort--to vengeance for justice with no negative results. So, hey clearly did what you said and made the valuation vengeance is not "lower;" so, you're in no position to tell them they're wrong. And while I had no intention of "convincing" anyone, and its clear your mind is made up, I have made quite a compelling argument for the legitimacy of vengeance as justice. You have yet to effectively counter that argument in any way.
The need for vengeance is emotional and an event can be so easily medicalized rather than justified through the courts for example. How do we reconcile that? Is it possible that while the need for vengeance may be more emotional than rational and we tend to say 'No thanks, we're British' it doesn't detract from the fact that emotionality still needs validating? Society has created an elaborate health system to deal with this aspect containing psychologists and psychiatrists. (in a structured rational way of course) not to mention prescribed medications to help us with mood swings etc. I'm not confident that the justice system is capable of addressing the emotional need when it has the potential to manifest into a major health issue. Admittedly I haven't thought any further at this point because it's early in the am.... :-)
As to vengeance inherently being more emotional than rational, I've already addressed that misconception in one of my earlier posts:Quote:
Originally Posted by Delta40
"It's not that Manichean. Throughout human history, many--if not most--people, tribes, and cultures could not and/or did not receive justice from a governing third power. The only justice they could attain from a wrong was through personally or tribally inflicted vengeance. And while that vengeance could be "exacted from a purely emotional state," it very often wasn't. The definition of vengeance, by the way, is: "punishment inflicted in retaliation for an injury or offense." So, being exacted from a purely emotional state is not an inherent element of vengeance.
This applies to personal vengeance, where a governing third party is also usually not involved nor can be. For example, if our spouse or girlfriend/boyfriend cheats on us, emotional states will factor, but the act of vengeance to leave/break up with them can also be a rational one, as the aggrieved can no longer trust the cheater. You, yourself obviously still believe in such personal vengeance, as you are still invested in punishing retaliation for those who bore witness against you."
As to our court systems taking into account the emotional need for vengeance in its sentencing, that would be a bad idea. The court is already exacting institutional--and granting some degree of personal--vengeance when it hands down sentences beyond the actual need for rehabilitation...as it should. However, sentencing emotionally to satisfy the victim's relatives' emotional needs opens up our sentencing process to innocent people being convicted and excessive sentences, including the death penalty. The justice system is definitely not an appropriate milieu for emotional vengeance.
My position does trump everyone else's as my position, the one that I accept. And I think my position is correct, but I am willing to listen to an argument against it. You are welcome to have your own position.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pike Bishop
At the moment I don't see any empirical data for either your assumption that vengeance leads to happiness or my assumption that it does not, so I will stick with my own position.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pike Bishop
As far as being in a position to tell others they are wrong, all I am doing is stating my opinion, just as you are stating your opinion. I am in a position to do that just as you are in a position to state your view.
I mentioned before, you have not convinced me. That means you have not made a compelling argument from my perspective. I acknowledge that I have not convinced you, but I am actually more interested in convincing myself that I am on the right track. I do appreciate your responses. They help me clarify my position.
If you're sticking to your position despite admitting you have provided no empirical evidence to support it, you can't criticize my position for my having yet to do so either. However, if you want to read about people who were happy and satisfied with vengeance, read about survivors of the Holocaust who attended the Nuremberg Trials and supported the executions of Nazi War criminals. They were perfectly happy with that vengeance.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
And their subsequent generations have no cause or case to argue at all because as you know they grew up happy since everybody just went about their business thanks to the great healing power of Justice being done.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pike Bishop
I'm not advocating retaliation so much as questioning the capacity of justice to replace another need or resolve something entirely and the complications that arise from that.
I'm saying this respectfully: your first sentence is a barely coherent run-on. If you want others to understand you, you need to watch your grammar a bit. However, if you're implying the descendants of the holocaust survivors are relevant to my point, they're not. The Holocaust survivors legitimately wanted vengeance against the Nazi Holocaust architects, along with their justice for what those men did. They were almost all advocating for vengeance by execution. And when they got that vengeance, they almost all expressed cathartic satisfaction with it. Anyone who would have told them they were wrong for doing so would have been immensely callous and inappropriate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Delta40
Pardon my grammar. I probably needed to phrase that more as a question. I do see your point obviously and what an example to use but if one opposes the death penalty they must be consistent. For me, this is the best society can do, mete out death through the justice system but lets not fool ourselves into thinking this means happy ever after endings. The descendants are relevant because they carry the legacy forward having been shaped by the victims themselves. Take a look at the state of affairs between Israel and Palestine. I don't believe justice is a fixer. It doesn't remove PTSD, bitterness, hatred - all things which descendants may have to shoulder and pass along to the next generation. That is very relevant.
The descendants are not relevant to the issue of whether the Holocaust survivors were happy and satisfied with their vengeance; that was the topic of discussion. However, your actually having the gall to actually blame the Israel/Palestine conflict and future suffering of their descendants on that justified vengeance is both inexcusable and wrong. I say that as both a Jew and a human being.Quote:
Originally Posted by Delta40
You have no idea of the degree of horrific suffering and loss that the survivors of the Holocaust went through. So, for you to sit there and judge their righteous and deserved vengeance, and make horrid speculations on its consequences, is really awful. I hope you never encounter an actual Holocaust survivor and/or one of their descendants and say such terrible things to their faces.
There is a Second Generation website for any interested: http://www.holocaustforgotten.com/2ndGen_Holocaust.htm. In a sense I agree with you both, Pike, and Delta. Vengeance does not help, nor does it help the children of holocaust victims, all it does is transfer the sense of needing vengeance to the next generation. This is the way feuds start and continue down the generations.
I'm sorry, Dreamwoven, nothing you said above shows you agree with me at all. And if you, too, are going to inexcusably and irrationally blame holocaust survivors for the Israel/Palestine conflict and other future suffering because they supported righteous vengeance against their Nazi tormentors who killed their loved ones, you should be ashamed of yourself, as well. That is simply reprehensible. You are in no position, ethically or experientially, to negatively judge their deserved and cathartic vengeance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamwoven
And I checked your link. Not only is it not an official historical site; it has no accounts whatsoever of the Nuremberg trials, its executions, and its affects. You can't just throw any link out there; you need to attach one that supports your position. Considering how horrible yours is towards those Holocaust survivors; you will find it hard to find one.
I said in a sense I agree with you both. I can see both points of view. That is why I have not joined this debate on one side or the other.
You chose the holocaust as an example. How dare you use your descendency as a passport to accuse me of things you have no knowledge about? I suggest you stick to the points of the discussion and use another example.
How do you know they were happy, let alone "perfectly" happy?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pike Bishop