On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 05:19:11 +0000 (UTC), mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net
wrote:

>In fj.life.in-japan C.Brady <ch.brady@comcastremove.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 14:27:31 +0000 (UTC), mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net
>> wrote:
>
>>>>>I simply do not believe the Germans were "victims" in WWII.
>>>
>>>> Merriam-Webster dictionary defines _victim_ as:
>>>
>>>That's nice; so the Germans were victims of the mean  ol' Poles.
>
>> Gee, why confuse you with 'facts'.... 
>
>Right; nasty ol' 'facts' like invading Poland, France, Belgium, Russia,
>etc., are really confusing.

No Mr. Fester, this was about dictionary definitions. Are you still
confused?
>
>> You just blithely disregarded Webster's definition of _victim_;
>> instead shifting to_ol Poles_. (Dismissing commonly accepted standards
>> of terms 
>
>Right; for example, it's a "commonly accepted standard" that the Germans
>were the victims in WW II is something I willfully dismiss as nonsense
>promulgated those who in all likelihood spent a good deal of their
>spare time peeling bananas with their feet and picking parasites off
>the more dominanant members of their immediate group.

I wouldn't know, yet it would appear, based on your vivid description,
that you are far more familiar with those _activities_ (bananas and
such) then I am. 
>
>>>If one does not believe one is a victim of one's own deedas, then one
>>>deduces that the Germans were not victims, but instigators.
>
>> I don't subscribe to the notion of collective guilt and collective
>
>Sorry, but when nations are involved, that's the way it is. Nations
>declare war against nations. Germany summarily invented reasons to 
>invade a neighbor, then another, then another, swallowing them up, and
>putting their people to the proverbial sword (or bullet, or barb-wire
>fence, or gas-chamber...)

Thanks for the history lessons. It's always refreshing to see someone
dispel the ugly stereotype of the ignorant American. Perhaps the
lessons would have been even better had they been done with a little
less hand-wringing (pun intended) and self-serving moral posturing.

>
>Indeed, the Germans were noted for not only national, but racial guilt
>and did something about it. They decided that inferior peoples had
>no rights, and then set several standards of what constituted
>"inferior". Rounding up small children and babies, then gassing them
>just for giggles does not spring to mind as behavior of a 'victim'. You,
>of course, disagree, as does the emotional Ms Schelby (who feels her own
>pain, but nobody else's.)

I don't condone genocide and brutality under any circumstances, and I
suspect neither does Ms. Shelby. I'm still waiting for you to denounce
such atrocities, regardless of ones ethnicity.
>
>It is a "commonly accepted standard" that the people who instigate a 
>war, then set about systematically exterminating civilians in areas
>under their control are not "victims" when a tiny taste of their own
>actions are visited upon them.

Just as there cannot be collective, or group, "rights" different and
distinct from the rights belonging to individuals, so there cannot be
collective, or group, guilt or responsibility different and distinct
from the responsibilities of separate individuals. "
You are really going down a slippery slope anytime you want to assign
certain collective attributes to a _group_ of people. After all, isn't
that what started the persecution against innocent people in the first
place during WWII?
>
>Of course, if you are consistant, you of course believe that a criminal
>becomes him/herself a victim when they are punished for their misdeeds.
>
>Just to clue you in; this is not a "commonly accepted standard"
>definition of "victim".

Selective sniping eh?
Here is my quote: "The principle of complicity is firmly grounded in
individualized justice. It has nothing to do with collective
punishment; indiscriminate slaughter is NOT morally defensible".
I can only speculate as to why you choose not to address my statement…
In fact, it is not acceptable for civilized people to punish the
guilty along with the innocent. It is also fair to say that
methodological individualism dominates academic thought throughout the
West.

>
>>>> Although you may experience some personal discomfort in having to
>>>> recognize that many Germans were indeed victims of a fascist political
>>>
>>>Although you may experience some personal discomfort in having to
>>>realize the Germans were indeed the promulgators of a fascist (actually,
>>>it wasn't fascist; that was a different nation), you'd be less likely to 
>>>find yourself in the silly position of being a nazi apologist.

LOL, I suspect that Ronald Reagan was a _ Nazi apologist_ as well when
he made the fallowing statements during the spring of 1985 at Bitburg:
"It is impossible to determine who was a follower of Hitler and his
ideas and who was merely a conscript. There were thousands of such
soldiers to whom Nazism meant no more than a brutal end to a short
life. We do not believe in collective guilt". 

Reagan further argued that the German people also suffered in the war.
"The war against the totalitarian dictatorship was not like other
wars. The evil war of Nazism turned all values upsidedown.
Nevertheless, we can mourn the German war dead as human beings crushed
by a vicious ideology". 

>>>
>>>Lemme guess; you're going to deny the Holocaust next...
>
>> Ah, here it comes! Conjecture, supposition, and a vivid 
>
>Oh, you mean like "he's a typical, America can do no wrong" kinda guy?
>
>I wonder what kinda lowbrow sub-intellectual started off with something
>like that?
>
>Why, that would be you and Ms Schelby. My, that IS low.

As usual, distortion is your forte, not erudition .  Know thyself!


- C.B.
>
>Mike