Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on May 16, 2018 20:18:00 GMT
As well as the holocaust you have the Cambodian genocide perpetrated by the Khmer Rouge regime that murdered up to 3 million. It was legal once upon a time in Russia to have someone killed for you. You couldn’t do it yourself, but you could have someone do it for you. In the U.S it used to be legal for a slavemaster to execute his slave. Local governments used to even offer rewards for the killing or capture of native Americans. I think you you get the point. Just because something is legal doesn’t make it right or morally acceptable. And I think you dodged the point, you claimed that it must have been ok to kill Jews because it was not illegal and therefore not murder. You were wrong. It depends on your definition of legality. In the Holocaust case the lawmakers made a decision and no steps were taken against the perpetrators by the police/courts.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on May 16, 2018 20:23:12 GMT
And I think you dodged the point, you claimed that it must have been ok to kill Jews because it was not illegal and therefore not murder. You were wrong. It depends on your definition of legality. In the Nazi case the lawmakers made a decision and not steps were taken against the perpetrators by the police/courts. No law was made in regards to the final solution, by any definition that means it was not legally enacted. You could argue that some lawmakers were involved in the Wansee conference and so therefore lawmakers made the decision, but there are two major flaws with that argument: The final solution was decided well before the conference. If a lawmaker decides something is ok, that does not make it a law. At the end of the day according to German law at the time, the victims of the holocaust (both the shoah by gas and the shoah by bullet) were murdered.
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on May 16, 2018 20:26:40 GMT
It depends on your definition of legality. In the Nazi case the lawmakers made a decision and not steps were taken against the perpetrators by the police/courts. You could argue that some lawmakers were involved in the Wansee conference and so therefore lawmakers made the decision, but there are two major flaws with that argument: The final solution was decided well before the conference. If a lawmaker decides something is ok, that does not make it a law. At the end of the day according to German law at the time, the victims of the holocaust (both the shoah by gas and the shoah by bullet) were murdered. It really depends on your definition of a law. "The final solution was decided well before the conference." I have no clue why that matters. "If a lawmaker decides something is ok, that does not make it a law." Well first of all I never said that. Second of all it depends on your definition. I personally wouldn't define a law as that btw. "At the end of the day according to German law at the time, the victims of the holocaust (both the shoah by gas and the shoah by bullet) were murdered" Well again it depends on how you want to define it. One could say the holocaust was legal because the lawmakers decreed it and the law enforcers did nothing to stop it. Perhaps the police even enforced the holocaust, I dont know enough about the holocaust to say.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on May 16, 2018 20:31:18 GMT
You could argue that some lawmakers were involved in the Wansee conference and so therefore lawmakers made the decision, but there are two major flaws with that argument: The final solution was decided well before the conference. If a lawmaker decides something is ok, that does not make it a law. At the end of the day according to German law at the time, the victims of the holocaust (both the shoah by gas and the shoah by bullet) were murdered. It really depends on your definition of a law. "The final solution was decided well before the conference." I have no clue why that matters. "If a lawmaker decides something is ok, that does not make it a law." Well first of all I never said that. Second of all it depends on your definition. I personally wouldn't define a law as that btw. "At the end of the day according to German law at the time, the victims of the holocaust (both the shoah by gas and the shoah by bullet) were murdered" Well again it depends on how you want to define it. One could say the holocaust was legal because the lawmakers decreed it and the law enforcers did nothing to stop it. Perhaps the police even enforced the holocaust, I dont know enough about the holocaust to say. No lawmakers decreed the holocaust. regardless, a lawmaker saying something does not enact it in law, for the holocaust to have been legally not murder, either the definition of murder in Germany would have to have changed, or the jews (and the 6 million other victims) would have to have been excluded from the definition of murder. Neither of these things happened, by the actual definition of legality, the holocaust was legally murder.
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on May 16, 2018 20:40:12 GMT
It really depends on your definition of a law. "The final solution was decided well before the conference." I have no clue why that matters. "If a lawmaker decides something is ok, that does not make it a law." Well first of all I never said that. Second of all it depends on your definition. I personally wouldn't define a law as that btw. "At the end of the day according to German law at the time, the victims of the holocaust (both the shoah by gas and the shoah by bullet) were murdered" Well again it depends on how you want to define it. One could say the holocaust was legal because the lawmakers decreed it and the law enforcers did nothing to stop it. Perhaps the police even enforced the holocaust, I dont know enough about the holocaust to say. No lawmakers decreed the holocaust. regardless, a lawmaker saying something does not enact it in law, for the holocaust to have been legally not murder, either the definition of murder in Germany would have to have changed, or the jews (and the 6 million other victims) would have to have been excluded from the definition of murder. Neither of these things happened, by the actual definition of legality, the holocaust was legally murder. "No lawmakers decreed the holocaust." The Nazi party decreed it or at least Hitler the dictator did. "regardless, a lawmaker saying something does not enact it in law" I never said it did. "for the holocaust to have been legally not murder, either the definition of murder in Germany would have to have changed," Again it depends on your definition of legality/the law. The ordering of the Holocaust and the compliance of the police force could be interpreted as a changing of the definition of murder. "actual definition of legality, the holocaust was legally murder" Actual definition? What on earth is an actual definition? EDIT: I just looked it up and apparently the German police actually helped with the holocaust
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on May 16, 2018 20:47:38 GMT
No lawmakers decreed the holocaust. regardless, a lawmaker saying something does not enact it in law, for the holocaust to have been legally not murder, either the definition of murder in Germany would have to have changed, or the jews (and the 6 million other victims) would have to have been excluded from the definition of murder. Neither of these things happened, by the actual definition of legality, the holocaust was legally murder. "No lawmakers decreed the holocaust." The Nazi party decreed it or at least Hitler the dictator did. "regardless, a lawmaker saying something does not enact it in law" I never said it did. "for the holocaust to have been legally not murder, either the definition of murder in Germany would have to have changed," Again it depends on your definition of legality/the law. The ordering of the Holocaust and the compliance of the police force could be interpreted as a changing of the definition of murder. "actual definition of legality, the holocaust was legally murder" Actual definition? What on earth is an actual definition? EDIT: I just looked it up and apparently the German police actually helped with the holocaust So if a police man is a serial killer, that makes serial killing legally sanctioned? merriam-webster dictionary definition of Legality is 1: attachment to or observance of law. 2: the quality or state of being legal according to the definition of legality, the holocaust was murder.
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on May 16, 2018 20:51:33 GMT
"No lawmakers decreed the holocaust." The Nazi party decreed it or at least Hitler the dictator did. "regardless, a lawmaker saying something does not enact it in law" I never said it did. "for the holocaust to have been legally not murder, either the definition of murder in Germany would have to have changed," Again it depends on your definition of legality/the law. The ordering of the Holocaust and the compliance of the police force could be interpreted as a changing of the definition of murder. "actual definition of legality, the holocaust was legally murder" Actual definition? What on earth is an actual definition? EDIT: I just looked it up and apparently the German police actually helped with the holocaust So if a police man is a serial killer, that makes serial killing legally sanctioned? merriam-webster dictionary definition of Legality is 1: attachment to or observance of law. 2: the quality or state of being legal according to the definition of legality, the holocaust was murder. I'm not arguing for one definition over another. I am just pointing out legality can mean different things to different people, There's a debate about it. "according to the definition of legality, the holocaust was murder." As I have stated a few times now it depends on your definition, as illustrated above there are competing definitions.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on May 16, 2018 21:02:40 GMT
So if a police man is a serial killer, that makes serial killing legally sanctioned? merriam-webster dictionary definition of Legality is 1: attachment to or observance of law. 2: the quality or state of being legal according to the definition of legality, the holocaust was murder. I'm not arguing for one definition over another. I am just pointing out legality can mean different things to different people, There's a debate about it. " according to the definition of legality, the holocaust was murder." As I have stated a few times now it depends on your definition, as illustrated above there are competing definitions. ok I accept that there is a debate over what law means, but most people in the context of this argument would agree that legality is defined as what is codified in written and enacted laws, and in actual fact this is how 99% of society works, yes it so happens that the police will mostly turn a blind eye to me going under 10KPH over the speed limit, that does not mean that what I did was legal, it simply means I got away with it. I think you may be hard pressed to find someone that thought the victims of the holocaust were killed legally, in fact I seem to recall a number of people were found guilty of the crime and executed.
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on May 16, 2018 21:10:31 GMT
I'm not arguing for one definition over another. I am just pointing out legality can mean different things to different people, There's a debate about it. " according to the definition of legality, the holocaust was murder." As I have stated a few times now it depends on your definition, as illustrated above there are competing definitions. ok I accept that there is a debate over what law means, but most people in the context of this argument would agree that legality is defined as what is codified in written and enacted laws, and in actual fact this is how 99% of society works, yes it so happens that the police will mostly turn a blind eye to me going under 10KPH over the speed limit, that does not mean that what I did was legal, it simply means I got away with it. I think you may be hard pressed to find someone that thought the victims of the holocaust were killed legally, in fact I seem to recall a number of people were found guilty of the crime and executed. Ok but do you now see how neither you nor CodyJarett are wrong? You both are just using two different definitions. John Austin would have considered the holocaust legal btw
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on May 16, 2018 21:20:03 GMT
ok I accept that there is a debate over what law means, but most people in the context of this argument would agree that legality is defined as what is codified in written and enacted laws, and in actual fact this is how 99% of society works, yes it so happens that the police will mostly turn a blind eye to me going under 10KPH over the speed limit, that does not mean that what I did was legal, it simply means I got away with it. I think you may be hard pressed to find someone that thought the victims of the holocaust were killed legally, in fact I seem to recall a number of people were found guilty of the crime and executed. Ok but do you now see how neither you nor CodyJarett are wrong? You both are just using two different definitions. John Austin would have considered the holocaust legal btw I disagree with your take on John Austin, given the secrecy and euphemisms around the final solution it seems apparent that the order was never given explicitly, in fact great pains were taken to ensure that it was not referred to or demanded. I also tend to think that the outcome of the nuremburg trials are a fair indication that there was a crime commited, I suppose you could argue that it was not murder they were tried with though. Having said that I am very black and white about the holocaust, I accept my thinking may be coloured by that.
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on May 16, 2018 21:26:41 GMT
Ok but do you now see how neither you nor CodyJarett are wrong? You both are just using two different definitions. John Austin would have considered the holocaust legal btw I disagree with your take on John Austin, given the secrecy and euphemisms around the final solution it seems apparent that the order was never given explicitly, in fact great pains were taken to ensure that it was not referred to or demanded. I also tend to think that the outcome of the nuremburg trials are a fair indication that there was a crime commited, I suppose you could argue that it was not murder they were tried with though. Having said that I am very black and white about the holocaust, I accept my thinking may be coloured by that. " I disagree with your take on John Austin, given the secrecy and euphemisms around the final solution it seems apparent that the order was never given explicitly," You dont think Hitler gave the explicit command to start the holocaust? How else do you think he communicated with those under his command? Did he give them secret signs through body language? Did he play pictionary with them? "I also tend to think that the outcome of the nuremburg trials are a fair indication that there was a crime commited, I suppose you could argue that it was not murder they were tried with though." Under international law (no matter your definition of law) the holocaust was illegal. Under German law however it depends on how you define law. There are different kinds of legal systems after all.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on May 16, 2018 21:44:48 GMT
I disagree with your take on John Austin, given the secrecy and euphemisms around the final solution it seems apparent that the order was never given explicitly, in fact great pains were taken to ensure that it was not referred to or demanded. I also tend to think that the outcome of the nuremburg trials are a fair indication that there was a crime commited, I suppose you could argue that it was not murder they were tried with though. Having said that I am very black and white about the holocaust, I accept my thinking may be coloured by that. " I disagree with your take on John Austin, given the secrecy and euphemisms around the final solution it seems apparent that the order was never given explicitly," You dont think Hitler gave the explicit command to start the holocaust? How else do you think he communicated with those under his command? Did he give them secret signs through body language? Did he play pictionary with them? "I also tend to think that the outcome of the nuremburg trials are a fair indication that there was a crime commited, I suppose you could argue that it was not murder they were tried with though." Under international law (no matter your definition of law) the holocaust was illegal. Under German law however it depends on how you define law. There are different kinds of legal systems after all. Reading your link on John Austin, the implication I come to is that it is a public decree, Hitler took great pains to communicate his wishes in euphemistic phrases and without committing them to paper or written orders, in actual fact the origin of the decision to begin killing jews is not documented, it is merely supposed (with very good evidence) that Hitler was the orignator. taking your link: In this case Hitler Where is that declared wish? There is no indication that Hitler gave any explicit order. To be fair there is a claim that a scribbled note by Himmler is evidence of a direct order, but that is still pretty fringe 20 years after its exposition. With regards your pictionary comment, haha, and yes I see your argument, but great pains were taken to distance Hitler from the final solution, he was supposed to come out of the war clean.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on May 16, 2018 22:16:43 GMT
As well as the holocaust you have the Cambodian genocide perpetrated by the Khmer Rouge regime that murdered up to 3 million. It was legal once upon a time in Russia to have someone killed for you. You couldn’t do it yourself, but you could have someone do it for you. In the U.S it used to be legal for a slavemaster to execute his slave. Local governments used to even offer rewards for the killing or capture of native Americans. I think you you get the point. Just because something is legal doesn’t make it right or morally acceptable. And I think you dodged the point, you claimed that it must have been ok to kill Jews because it was not illegal and therefore not murder. You were wrong. Under the Nazi government regime it was not illegal.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on May 16, 2018 22:19:25 GMT
And I think you dodged the point, you claimed that it must have been ok to kill Jews because it was not illegal and therefore not murder. You were wrong. Under the Nazi government regime it was not illegal. Bullshit. The murder laws in Germany during the Nazi regime covered Jews as well. There was no change in laws enacted nor were Jews ever codified to be exempt from the law. I notice you find it hard to answer the question of why the final solution was kept a secret, surely if it was legal there would be no point?
|
|
|
Post by goz on May 17, 2018 1:33:49 GMT
Okay. So under what circumstances would it not be justified? If some moron got knocked up and wasnt willing to face the consequences of unsafe sex for example. That responsibility should then be shared with the 'knocker upper' however he can move on and so the pregnant woman deserves support for her decision since it is in her body. Did you know that couples can have sex with precaution and STILL get pregnant? Fancy that!
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on May 17, 2018 1:48:23 GMT
If some moron got knocked up and wasnt willing to face the consequences of unsafe sex for example. That responsibility should then be shared with the 'knocker upper' however he can move on and so the pregnant woman deserves support for her decision since it is in her body. Did you know that couples can have sex with precaution and STILL get pregnant? Fancy that! It's rare.
|
|
|
Post by goz on May 17, 2018 1:53:17 GMT
That responsibility should then be shared with the 'knocker upper' however he can move on and so the pregnant woman deserves support for her decision since it is in her body. Did you know that couples can have sex with precaution and STILL get pregnant? Fancy that! It's rare. Holy crap! You Really don't want me to have to post the stats of every contraceptive percentage success and failure rate and multiply that by the number of times people have sex...do you? Please say no!
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on May 17, 2018 2:00:36 GMT
Holy crap! You Really don't want me to have to post the stats of every contraceptive percentage success and failure rate and multiply that by the number of times people have sex...do you? Please say no! You can do what you want, but birth control with a high failure rate is by definition not birth control. Further, it's silly to pretend that it is some high percentage of abortions. It is perfectly legal, i.e. justified, to get pregnant on purpose just to abort the thing, so there's no need to think of abortion as some grand champion of people who always take precautions. It's a big business specifically because people fail at taking precautions. We all know the reasons for most abortions and it is simply that the woman doesn't want the prekid they produced with a dude for any number of reasons...Although they sure wanted the unprotected sex that night. Bow chicka wow wow!!!
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on May 17, 2018 2:03:05 GMT
And I think you dodged the point, you claimed that it must have been ok to kill Jews because it was not illegal and therefore not murder. You were wrong. Under the Nazi government regime it was not illegal. Suppose that the holocaust etc. didn't involve murdering anyone because it was legal to kill the people who were killed. Okay, and? Aside from the fact that maybe you'd finally have a grasp on the conventional usage of the term "murder," what would this matter ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2018 2:28:35 GMT
"No lawmakers decreed the holocaust." The Nazi party decreed it or at least Hitler the dictator did. "regardless, a lawmaker saying something does not enact it in law" I never said it did. "for the holocaust to have been legally not murder, either the definition of murder in Germany would have to have changed," Again it depends on your definition of legality/the law. The ordering of the Holocaust and the compliance of the police force could be interpreted as a changing of the definition of murder. "actual definition of legality, the holocaust was legally murder" Actual definition? What on earth is an actual definition? EDIT: I just looked it up and apparently the German police actually helped with the holocaust So if a police man is a serial killer, that makes serial killing legally sanctioned? merriam-webster dictionary definition of Legality is 1: attachment to or observance of law. 2: the quality or state of being legal according to the definition of legality, the holocaust was murder. The legality of the holocaust seems a little fuzzy. On the one hand, so far as I can find there were no laws in Nazi Germany making it legal to murder jews or anybody else. So technically, the holocaust may have actually been illegal. On the other hand, Hitler's orders did have force of law. So if he ordered the holocaust, then it would be legal. But there's precious little evidence demonstrating that Hitler directly ordered the holocaust, because the Nazis covered it up (though of course he certainly did). And of course the Nazis were not a group who overly concerned themselves with following laws anyway when it didn't suit them to do so. On the Gripping hand, the Allies took the view that there was such a thing as a "crime against humanity", meaning "Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated." So the Allies asserted that there was a law higher than ordinary national laws. And since they'd won the war, they got to do that whether other people think it's fair or not. Which means that yes, the killing of the jews (and others) in the holocaust was not legal but was in fact a crime, regardless of what German law had to say about it. I guess the reality of that is indicated by the fact that the men responsible were arrested, charged, given a fair trial, convicted, and jailed or hanged.
|
|