Getting Away With Nazi Warcrimes!

[ParkCungHee]

But I still think that the kind of people who conceives that theory is the kind of people who likes it.

So...lets see:
Charles Darwin really wanted humans to have inborn base instincts and limitations due to being descended from apes? And Marx really liked the worst abuses of Capitalism, and wanted it to be necessarily exploitative? Roseau wanted to put everyone in chains. Oh, and this really screws over your own anti-imperialist views. You see because you theorize that intervention in Libya are about natural resources and weakening the Libyan state, that means you really want to do that. Oh, anti-racism is in a bad place too with this. They want to see lingering effects of racism and slavery as causing tremendous suffering, what pricks!

 

[LightSpectra]

But I still think that the kind of people who conceives that theory is the kind of people who likes it. He didn't show any signs of despair, or even distress, or simply an effort to think of alternatives...

Malthus was attempting to be scientific and explain phenomenon that he observed. It would've been academically inappropriate for him to be wildly emotional about it, meaning that his alleged silence on the matter isn't proof of anything, anymore than it's proof that doctors are sadists if they're not crying over the death and suffering of their patients.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Malthus was attempting to be scientific and explain phenomenon that he observed. It would've been academically inappropriate for him to be wildly emotional about it, meaning that his alleged silence on the matter isn't proof of anything, anymore than it's proof that doctors are sadists if they're not crying over the death and suffering of their patients.

Oh right, I forgot about doctors too. You know that Doctors would hate it if all diseases could be cured with water.

 

[Lord Baal]

Oh right, I forgot about doctors too. You know that Doctors would hate it if all diseases could be cured with water.

Of course they would, which is why the evil medical-industrial complex tries its hardest to crush the homeopaths, the true heirs of Hippocrates.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Of course they would, which is why the evil medical-industrial complex tries its hardest to crush the homeopaths, the true heirs of Hippocrates.

Hippocrates was a jerk too. He wanted random people to suffer from incurable illness, rather then jerks to suffer their just punishment from evil spirits.

 

[Virote_Considon]

Hippocrates was a jerk too. He wanted random people to suffer from incurable illness, rather then jerks to suffer their just punishment from evil spirits.

You'd like that, wouldn't you?

 

[ParkCungHee]

That would make sense being the awful person that I am. See unlike Malthus who wanted poverty and war to be the result of impersonal natural forces that he couldn't figure out how to beat, I believe the only cause of war and poverty is that the average person wants that. Which means I want people to want war. Which is awful.

 

[innonimatu]

So...lets see:
Charles Darwin really wanted humans to have inborn base instincts and limitations due to being descended from apes? And Marx really liked the worst abuses of Capitalism, and wanted it to be necessarily exploitative? Roseau wanted to put everyone in chains. Oh, and this really screws over your own anti-imperialist views. You see because you theorize that intervention in Libya are about natural resources and weakening the Libyan state, that means you really want to do that. Oh, anti-racism is in a bad place too with this. They want to see lingering effects of racism and slavery as causing tremendous suffering, what pricks!

You're conveniently neglecting to mention the fact (already pointed out here anyway) that in every one of your examples (minus the Darwin one, which is just stupid) the authors actually proposed and defended alternatives. Their theories were about things which were wrong. They made it very clear that they didn't like it. And what I pointed out (read the text you yourself quoted) was that Malthus showed no such distress, no such worry.

«I mean, Marx sees the bad living conditions of the proletariat, he sets about finding a way to change those, and calls on people to do things differently. Malthus sees people starving because they (allegedly) reproduce too much, he argues that it's live, just accept it - which is to say, ignore it and tolerate it.

But hey, don't let facts get in the way of the sarcasm fest!

 

[ParkCungHee]

You're conveniently neglecting to mention the fact (already pointed out here anyway) that in every one of your examples (minus the Darwin one, which is just stupid)

Well, that's a convincing argument.

[the authors actually proposed and defended alternatives.

Hipocrates certainly didn't. He thought sometimes people just died because they got horrible diseases, and that sometimes medicine couldn't fix this. This is a tradition extended to current doctors, who propose no cure for aids, and viciously go after the people who really want to see AIDS cured, by theorizing about water or vitamins or the power of prayer.

«I mean, Marx sees the bad living conditions of the proletariat, he sets about finding a way to change those, and calls on people to do things differently. Malthus sees people starving because they (allegedly) reproduce too much, he argues that it's live, just accept it - which is to say, ignore it and tolerate it.

But if Marx actually cared about the poor he wouldn't want them to have bad living conditions, and as such he would have theorized that the poor are all playing an elaborate practical joke on us. Instead, he was an awful person who theorized that the entire economic system of Europe was exploitative and had an interest in seeing people poor. Because he wanted that.

But hey, don't let facts get in the way of the sarcasm fest!

Yeah, fact are "stupid" therefor they can be written off.

 

[Lord Baal]

You're conveniently neglecting to mention the fact (already pointed out here anyway) that in every one of your examples (minus the Darwin one, which is just stupid) the authors actually proposed and defended alternatives. Their theories were about things which were wrong. They made it very clear that they didn't like it. And what I pointed out (read the text you yourself quoted) was that Malthus showed no such distress, no such worry.

«I mean, Marx sees the bad living conditions of the proletariat, he sets about finding a way to change those, and calls on people to do things differently. Malthus sees people starving because they (allegedly) reproduce too much, he argues that it's live, just accept it - which is to say, ignore it and tolerate it.

But hey, don't let facts get in the way of the sarcasm fest!

So if I theorise that lightning can kill people, but offer up no alternatives to lightning killing people, I'm somehow rooting for the lightning?

 

[Lone Wolf]

In support of Inno's argument - since the conditions of the poor in Malthus' time were at least partially redeemable, and their suffering was not due to them "reproducing too much", the fact that Malthus blamed it all just on natural laws makes him intentionally or unintentionally villainous. If you say that a social ill that can be alleviated is natural and there's nothing you can do about it, your statements supports those who don't want to alleviate it, for some reason or other.

 

[Lord Baal]

In support of Inno's argument - since the conditions of the poor in Malthus' time were at least partially redeemable, and their suffering was not due to them "reproducing too much", the fact that Malthus blamed it all just on natural laws makes him intentionally or unintentionally villainous. If you say that a social ill that can be alleviated is natural and there's nothing you can do about it, your statements supports those who don't want to alleviate it, for some reason or other.

Nope. It simply makes him a poor philosopher and a worse scientist. Recognising something as inevitable - even if it's not - doesn't mean that someone actually enjoys it.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Nope. It simply makes him a poor philosopher and a worse scientist. Recognising something as inevitable - even if it's not - doesn't mean that someone actually enjoys it.

Yes, but is the a degree of harmful bad science beyond which the scientist is actually evil, though possibly unintentionally?

 

[Lord Baal]

Yes, but is the a degree of harmful bad science beyond which the scientist is actually evil, though possibly unintentionally?

No. There's such thing as evil science, certainly - look at what the Nazis and Japanese did to their victims, or the US government's experiments on STD-sufferers, for example - but simply being a bad scientist, even an absolutely awful one, isn't evil.

Also, I'm not sure how one can be "unintentionally evil." Evil is a matter of intent.

 

[aelf]

Evil is a matter of intent.

That's debatable.

 

[Dachs]

Isn't "evil" something you do, rather than something you are?

 

[Lone Wolf]

Pah, philosophical arguments about the definition and nature of evil. I didn't mean to start them.

 

[de Maistre]

"Evil doer" sounds way better than "evil person" anyway.

 

[Lord Baal]

Pah, philosophical arguments about the definition and nature of evil. I didn't mean to start them.

Better than what the thread started with.

 

[innonimatu]

Hipocrates certainly didn't. He thought sometimes people just died because they got horrible diseases, and that sometimes medicine couldn't fix this. This is a tradition extended to current doctors, who propose no cure for aids, and viciously go after the people who really want to see AIDS cured, by theorizing about water or vitamins or the power of prayer.


But if Marx actually cared about the poor he wouldn't want them to have bad living conditions, and as such he would have theorized that the poor are all playing an elaborate practical joke on us. Instead, he was an awful person who theorized that the entire economic system of Europe was exploitative and had an interest in seeing people poor. Because he wanted that.

Oh, come on, that's and you know it. Doctors do want to see AIDS cured and don't write off the possibility of working towards that, even when they themselves cannot, for lack of appropriate talents, add to that work. Same for Marx and the many, many other social reformers. It's exactly the opposite of Mathus' attitude!

And I'm also more with the "actions are evil, not people" field, btw.