Discussion in 'Trek Literature' started by Elemental, Jul 15, 2009.
I think what the Nasat was saying is that people have knowledge (sum of what they've learnt, seen, experienced, done, etc.) and they can take action or make choices based on that knowledge (or the application of knowledge).
It doesn't absolve Hitler of his crimes to say that the economic conditions of WWI were a part of his knowledge and experience which was a factor in his later actions. He might well have chosen a different (and peaceful) path given the same knowledge had he applied it differently. (Yes, I believe in free-will insofar as an individual's choices are concerned) Given the same knowledge, someone else in his place might have made a different choice. So he is responsible for his actions. Morality and responsibility are thus very much relevant and applicable to humans as also is experience and circumstance.
^Exactly. In the same way, the Typhon Pact may have a giant chip on its collective shoulder...but frankly, it's up to them to decide what they're gonna do with it.
To not get ticked off at every single real-or-made-up insult is, after all, a sign of maturity--and it means you deserve to be taken seriously.
Respect, in this case, is earned, not entitiled by mass....
Oy gevalt! I go off to take an afternoon nap and look what happens?
Suffice it to say that I do not think that acknowledging the motivations of bad people is the same thing as excusing their choices. I do think that most people, even bad people, think of themselves as good people and try to devise intellectual systems that justify choices that to everyone else are clearly immoral, and I do think it's important to understand that.
I also think that the fact that Hitler thought he was a good person doesn't excuse his choices or make him an okay guy who just needed love. If anything, I'd argue that that makes him a worse person; at least a sociopath genuinely doesn't understand the idea of morality.
That's pretty much all I have to say in response to ProtoAvatar's arguments. But, hey, don't let that get in the way of flaming me because you don't like me, ProtoAvatar.
^Don't take it personaly, Sci. It's just business....
Sometimes I don't worry about people's motivations. I just add them to my ignore list.
Did every other person from a former major european power get abit uncomfortable when you read that?
Britan, France, Spain, Russia, Portugal et al...
Hell the good old US of A is built on the Native American's land isn't it?
It is important to note that most of the major European countries, and the United States, have a history of violent conquest and subjugation.
It's also important to remember that that trend was winding down in the post-World War I era; people were starting to really see that that was wrong and unsustainable. And as such, it's also important to remember that Hitler, Mussolini, and the Japanese were not only being immoral by seeking to conquer the world, but were also showing that they were behind the times as the world's liberal democracies began to realize that imperialism is evil.
It's also important to recognize that the Axis powers were pretty unique in their desire to quite literally conquer the planet and divide it between the three of then.
To be fair though, that could be interpreted as blaming the Axis powers for simply being late to the party as it were.
Very true, every other empire would have wanted the entire world for itself...
I'm not defending the Axis powers or anything, and I'm certainly not trying to sweep under the rug our past sins. But just because it was seen as unacceptable to people in countries that had already built empires, is hardly going to sound reasonable.
And as for us being a liberal democracy, I don't know about the States, but when world war 2 broke out the UK had had universal suffrage for 2 decades. We'd also spent the inter-war period wielding the Leauge of Nations whenever anyone threatened Britain's interests.
Just my confused ramblings
I think the most reasonable thing anyone can say is that the major countries of the world had, and still have, a long way to go before they lived up to their stated ideals, and that they were themselves guilty of many horrific human rights violations.... But that, at the same time, the evil of the Axis governments was the most extreme, inhumane manifestation of imperialism yet seen. However bad we may have been, we were never that bad, and we shouldn't paint ourselves as such.
I have this experience a lot around here that I come into some particularly divisive argument, and have something to say, only to read further and discover that Sci has already said it.
So... carry on.
Oh I dunno, I'm not sure Mussolini's Italy was quite up to par with, say, Genghis Khan's Mongolian Empire or Caligula's Rome, or Vlad Tepes' Wallachia ... or even Stalinist Russia who was, after all, our ally.
Or were you lumping Fascist Italy in with Nazi Germany and not treating them as separate sovereign nations?
This is my opinion as well. (For whatever that's worth... ) I'd be just as happy if Treklit ignored the Hobus mega-nova altogether.
It seems to me that there are a couple things in the movie that could be used to show that "Prime" Spock from 2387 is actually from a different timeline/universe than the one we have been following in the shows and literature, if one chose to interpret them that way. (Of course, there are also ways to explain them away so that Prime Spock's universe is the same one we've been following... but that's not my preferred interpretation. )
As Mr. Laser Beam points out, Countdown seems to exist in the STO timeline, so I'm just as happy having ST09's 2387 in that timeline as well... separate from lit. Then lit would be free to pursue its own direction in the late 24th century. It's probably not likely, but a man can dream...
William Leisner, will you be signing copies of Losing the Peace while we're stuck in Re-education Camp??
I hate temporal mechanics....
So, just to sum up, ProtoAvatar thinks I'm trying to excuse Hitler and the other Axis governments, and Kestrel thinks I stereotype and don't show sufficient awareness of other horrific human rights abusers.
So, in other words, ProtoAvatar thinks I'm too much of a cultural relativist, Kestrel seems to be arguing that I'm ethnocentric.
You just can't win around here.
Sure you can win, Sci.
Write what you think, not what you think others want to hear.
Regardless of how many people are going to pull you up on it and dissect every word you say...
In this case, you'll just have to return the favour.
Separate names with a comma.