"Explosion" in Manchester

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No, the Nazi killing of jews was not a moral decision because "it was the right thing to do", that view forgets several things and you hurt your credibility when you write"Nazi's" as a plural form, resist the dark side of bad grammar!
Nitpicking aside, the Nazis had this idea that the jews were some kind of closed cabal that was trying to subjugate the entire world. There were the Jewish Bolsheviks and the Jewish Capitalists and they were all out to get the Good Aryans back into their world order. Therefore every jew in German-occupied territory was an enemy spy on top of being a subhuman with a lower set of morals and a greater capacity for evil. Their mere existence was therefore seen as a threat to national security and their murder a vital part of the war effort. From that point of view, the killing spree did not hurt the war effort, it helped the war effort by removing enemy agents from within.

The definition PVC uses for barbarism is the widespread one, just compare it to a game like Civilization V, which uses exactly the same definition, where barbarians are distinct from civilized societies. There might be academics who would like to use a different definition but that doesn't count here, cannot be expected to be common knowledge and most of all, doesn't invalidate the point as the definition PVC used is not wrong just because it differs from another one.

What makes this topic further exciting is that I sense a big deal of sarcasm in PVC's posts that seems to have gone by completely unnoticed. Perhaps much like my sarcasm, which might also explain why I sense it. He keeps making quips about how enlightenment and progressivism led the Nazis to do what they did, given his more catholic traditional background, I would say that's an excellent trap.........wait, the EU, seriously? Now you really ruined that and it was so promising... Remove that and leave the calls to remove muslims, because that actually fits.

I would not say I was being sarcastic, but I find it ironic that the Nazis can be used to argue that scientific progress can be linked to moral decay. Overall though, the point is that Nazi Germany is not that divorced from either the other civilisations around at the time, or our modern world.

The Nazis are not sufficiently "other" to qualify as barbarians when compared to modern Western Civilisation because their motives and actions are entirely intelligible if you just accept a few basic fundamental "truths" that we are, in fact, going to reject out of hand.

As regards comparison to the EU - the point there was that a lot of what the Eurozone has done is attempted to apply a purely mechanical solution to an economic problem as though all problem have mechanical solutions, a view which springs entirely from Enlightenment thought. It is also a view I consider fundamentally flawed, but then I believe in an omnipotent deity, and I'm willing to countenance piskies, and ghosts.

Note 1. I naturally refer to "Nazi's" in plural because NAZI is an acronym. However, it would be churlish to dissagree with an educated German on the subject, so I won't.

Note 2. If you have correctly read my point but miss-identified my my irony as sarcasm then perhaps we have struck upon the precise boundary between wry British irony and dry German Sarcasm. Might we call it the "Husar-Philippus Demarcation Point"? Perhaps a Nobel Peace Prize is due to us in the future for this contribution to international harmony and understanding?

I believe they do make decisions which are rational FROM THEIR POINT OF VIEW. It is the fault of un-barbarians if they can't see the logics of such decisions. And I think barbarians are of the same opinion of the decisions made by un-barbarians.

Yes, you're absolutely right, everybody is a barbarian to somebody, quisque barbarus est alio.

No no, PVC wasn't hewing to either of those definitions. Read again with that in mind.

No, no. I would say Husar is more or less right - although I'm using definition 1.b to an extent too. Perception of barkwardness vs our "advanced" civilisation is definitely key here - though.

[Husar]

Note 1. I naturally refer to "Nazi's" in plural because NAZI is an acronym. However, it would be churlish to dissagree with an educated German on the subject, so I won't.

That was mostly in reply to Monty, but the apostrophe only belongs there in the genitive form either way. "Nazis" is the plural and "Nazi's gun" means the gun belongs to one Nazi. If the gun belongs to more than one Nazi, it is "Nazis' gun". I'm not aware that or could think of why it would be different with acronyms since an acronym is just a shorter placeholder for the full word or phrase. So you might wite "national socialists" or "Nazis", "national socialist's" or "Nazi's" and so on. Of course technically speaking a Nazi is a "Nationalsozialist" and in German the plural would be "Nationalsozialisten" while the genitive would be "Nationalsozialisten".
Of course with the article it makes more sense: plural: "die Nationalsozialisten", genitive: "des Nationalsozialisten".
I won't blame you for using the plural and genitive of the English word though.

Note 2. If you have correctly read my point but miss-identified my my irony as sarcasm then perhaps we have struck upon the precise boundary between wry British irony and dry German Sarcasm. Might we call it the "Husar-Philippus Demarcation Point"? Perhaps a Nobel Peace Prize is due to us in the future for this contribution to international harmony and understanding?

It's late and I can't decide whether irony and sarcasm are different enough to warrant that, but we should accept the prize.

[Gilrandir]

Really? Warrior ethics?

It was not MY claim:

Bravery has traditionally been associated with the warrior ethos. At what time in history has it been considered reasonable for a warrior to target victims such as these?

You somehow didn't respond to this statement by Pannonian, but react to my reminding the initial premise (not neccessarily accurate) of the discussion. So address the claim-maker. Yet it doesn't cancel what I said about Hitler's position (as one not of a warrior) in WWII.

Although, in Pannonian's defense, being accepted as a code doesn't mean being always followed. Like doctors take Hippocratic oath, but one can find plethora of examples when they break it. The same of knighthood principles. All of the codes are more like a paragon to look up to.

I'm not aware that or could think of why it would be different with acronyms since an acronym is just a shorter placeholder for the full word or phrase. So you might wite "national socialists" or "Nazis", "national socialist's" or "Nazi's" and so on.

You are both wrong. "Nazi" is not an acronym, it is a clipping (abbreviation).

An acronym is an abbreviation of several words in such a way that the abbreviation itself forms a pronounceable word.
http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/acronym

[Husar]

It was not MY claim:


You somehow didn't respond to this statement by Pannonian, but react to my reminding the initial premise (not neccessarily accurate) of the discussion. So address the claim-maker. Yet it doesn't cancel what I said about Hitler's position (as one not of a warrior) in WWII.

Although, in Pannonian's defense, being accepted as a code doesn't mean being always followed. Like doctors take Hippocratic oath, but one can find plethora of examples when they break it. The same of knighthood principles. All of the codes are more like a paragon to look up to.

I know it wasn't your claim, I already replied to it in a previous post, so you're wrong about me not responding to his statement.
Your reminder came without a critical thought apparently and I had not previously brought up any hard evidence against it. I replied to your bringing it up again to kill it with fire before anyone would seriously consider it again now that you brought it up again. Don't put wrong arguments into focus again uncritically if you don't want me to strike them down right away.

As for the exception proving the rule, maybe you missed the part where I posted many very striking examples that would make it hard to call them all exceptions. When entire armies slaughter entire cities, you have to explain to me how that is a warrior making an exception to the rule. Is the warrior ethics code written down anywhere anyway? Do warriors sign it or swear an oath to it worldwide? If not, then it is merely a code by implication and with so many examples against it, I would wonder why someone would imply it in the first place. I would say it's a romanticizing of warriors for the purpose of a political argument.

You are both wrong. "Nazi" is not an acronym, it is a clipping (abbreviation).

An acronym is an abbreviation of several words in such a way that the abbreviation itself forms a pronounceable word.
http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/acronym

Yes, in my defense, it was late, I was tired, and I had a feeling you would come and correct any leftover mistakes (and I did say "wordor phrase).

[Gilrandir]

I know it wasn't your claim, I already replied to it in a previous post, so you're wrong about me not responding to his statement.

My bad. And yours as well. Do you expect anyone to pay attention to the text after the initial word in such a big font?

As for the exception proving the rule, maybe you missed the part where I posted many very striking examples that would make it hard to call them all exceptions. When entire armies slaughter entire cities, you have to explain to me how that is a warrior making an exception to the rule.

If you look at my post again, you would see I NEVER used the word "exception". I said "the code isn't always followed". To put it in other words, cases of breaking it are quite numerous. They can in no way be qualified as an exception, but rather a sad practice.

Is the warrior ethics code written down anywhere anyway? Do warriors sign it or swear an oath to it worldwide? If not, then it is merely a code by implication and with so many examples against it, I would wonder why someone would imply it in the first place. I would say it's a romanticizing of warriors for the purpose of a political argument.

I agree. But I have an impression (perhaps a romantic one too) that in modern world oaths (written or unwritten, sworn or conventionally recognized) weigh less than they used to be. Just the words to be disregarded or forsworn (the pun intended) at a propitious moment. The same about treaties and agreements.

Yes, in my defense, it was late, I was tired, and I had a feeling you would come and correct any leftover mistakes (and I did say "wordor phrase).

Have you forgotten the Backroom code never to post tired, God forbid late?

[Husar]

My bad. And yours as well. Do you expect anyone to pay attention to the text after the initial word in such a big font?:

Yes, and also, yes...

If you look at my post again, you would see I NEVER used the word "exception". I said "the code isn't always followed". To put it in other words, cases of breaking it are quite numerous. They can in no way be qualified as an exception, but rather a sad practice.

I went one step beyond what you said, in that if there is a code, then these cases would have to be exceptions. I wasn't saying you said that, I commented on the logical conclusion of what you said "in Pannonian's defense".
The difference is that the knighthood ideals and the Hippocratic oath are written down and the members of the relevant organizations claim to adhere to them. I've never seen a warrior cite some well-known warrior code of ethics or claim to adhere to one. So if there were such a code, like the "honor among thieves", it would have to show through it being practiced in an overwhelming number of cases, as though it were one of the essences of the "warrior trade". I don't think that is the case (and you seem to agree there), so there is no such code.

I agree. But I have an impression (perhaps a romantic one too) that in modern world oaths (written or unwritten, sworn or conventionally recognized) weigh less than they used to be. Just the words to be disregarded or forsworn (the pun intended) at a propitious moment. The same about treaties and agreements.

This might be correct, but we have a saying here that goes: "Worte sind Schall und Rauch." - "Words are sound and smoke."
Implying that things can easily be said and there is no inherent persistence.

Have you forgotten the Backroom code never to post tired, God forbid late?

It is only implied through practice, so I'm trying to break it out of existence!

[Gilrandir]

The difference is that the knighthood ideals and the Hippocratic oath are written down and the members of the relevant organizations claim to adhere to them. I've never seen a warrior cite some well-known warrior code of ethics or claim to adhere to one.

I may be mistaken, but what Pannonian meant was rather close to the knighthood oath:

Be loyal of hand and of mouth, seeking to serve every man as best ye may.
Seek ye the fellowship of good men, hearken unto their words and remember them.
Be humble and courteous wherever thou goest, not talking much, neither being dumb altogether.
Allow no women or child to suffer by thy default, so that if ye may lift thy hand to assist one, do so. If thou must draw thy sword to defend them, do so unto thy own death.
If thou come into fellowship with boys or men who speak in a disrespectful manner of any women or maiden, let them know in gracious words that this displeases thou and thy Lord, then depart their company forthwith.
Thou art to defend and protect those who seek to worship in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and promote faith in Him throughout this earth He has made.

http://www.knightforhire.com/oath_of_the_knight.htm

So, loosely speaking, it can be thought to be ETHICALLY binding all warriors. But of course they never took it. Though the society presumes they should abide by it.