If a earthquake/hurricane devastated Nazi Germany, would you send aid?

[Broken Glass Can]

Read this article before you reply. (http://www.jewishinternetassociation.org/articles/goodtree_02jan05a.html)

[cardcounter0]

I'll take a stab at it.

The Author states that in the "old days" there was a distinct difference between "good" and "bad" and that people had a "good working moral compass".

She then goes on to criticize the Muslims for wanting Women to confirm to local custom and wear Muslim garb even when they are in their country giving out aid.

I guess she fails to see that the Muslims also have a distinct code of "good" and "bad". It seems women not dressed appropriately is "bad". They also have a "good working moral compass" and will even go so far as to not accept aid from women who are dressed "bad".

So for this, we should comdemn the entire regions and those countries, because their definitions of "good" and "bad" don't match ours.

I think the article also makes mention that we should make sure and punish all prisioners, even if some are innocent, to make sure that no guilty escape punishment. Kind of the opposite argument to the anti-death penality crowd, who think no prisoner should be executed least we mistakenly execute an innocent man.

The author also threw in that all German citizens should have been punished, since the country did evil, and as citizens they were all guilty.

Kind of scary if that same collective guilt were to be wrapped around American citizens, considering the gang of thugs currently in office.

How did I do?

[Broken Glass Can]

I don't think the wearing of clothes (head scarves) was the big issue of the article. Did you miss these:

Muslims would rather be dead than touched by a Jew.

Sexual slavery,

slavery,

torture,

forced sexual mutilation,

mass serial murder of Christians,

forced conversion of Christians,

genocide of Christians,

government-sanctioned 'Crimes Against Humanity.'

allows children to be abducted and used as soldiers,

practice apartheid based upon caste discrimination (which also includes slavery,

debt bondage and sexual slavery and abuse),

Persecution of Burmese people,

child sexual enslavement,

slavery (forced labor),

rape of ethnic minority women and children,

sexual slavery and debt bondage.

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
The author also threw in that all German citizens should have been punished, since the country did evil, and as citizens they were all guilty.


[/ QUOTE ]

The author did not say this. I'll let you read it again.

[cardcounter0]

Number 3 on your list was torture. Aren't we in favor of that?

How many of those things are current practice, and how many are historical events? As a citizen of a "Christian" Nation, should disaster aid be denied to me because of the atrocities committed by "Christians" during the crusades?

And for some of the other items on your list:

We should deny aid to the discriminated lower caste members, and those children raped and sold into slavery, because they are responsible for helping perpetuate the caste system, child rape, and slavery. Right?

And the children forced into miltary service -- No Aid for you.

Raped ethnic minority women and children -- No Aid for you.

etc., etc. -- No Aid for you.

Ahhhh!!! I see the light. We just need to appoint this woman as Aid Nazi, much like the Seinfield Soup Nazi. Then only people with a faulty moral compass, willing to discard their notions of "good" and "bad" will conform and receive aid. The rest can be punished for their "sins".

[cardcounter0]

Please read your own article. I'll let you read it again.


"However, because the majority was engaged in genocide, the very few who did not advocate it would have to suffer Nature's wrath along with the genocidal monsters."

[Broken Glass Can]

By the same logic, we must release 10 convicted rapists because one might be innocent. The fact that other people will be raped by the released rapists means such an act will spread misery further. Better to keep the unfortunate innocent man in jail than create multiple new victims.

If we support evil practices in these countries, we are helping create future victims there too.

[nicky g]

"By the same logic, we must release 10 convicted rapists because one might be innocent. "

Er, no. Individual criminal cases can be treated individually.

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
the very few who did not advocate it would have to suffer Nature's wrath along with the genocidal monsters

[/ QUOTE ]

Since when is nature's wrath a punishment imposed by us?

You said in your earlier post that we advocated that they should all be punished, that is not the same thing. Is the USA responsible for the whims of nature now?

[cardcounter0]

Actually that is almost an exact quote from someone.
Better to let 10 guilty go free than punish an innocent man.

Kind of part of the foundation of "innocent until proven guilty". Sounds better than "kill them all, some of them must be guilty".

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
"By the same logic, we must release 10 convicted rapists because one might be innocent. "

Er, no. Individual criminal cases can be treated individually.

[/ QUOTE ]

My assumption was that we could not distinguish who the innocent person was. A certain percentage of convicted prisoners are innocent, but we don't know who.

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually that is almost an exact quote from someone.
Better to let 10 guilty go free than punish an innocent man.


[/ QUOTE ]

Suppose we know from statistics that 9 released rapists will commit 5 more rapes upon release. From a strictly utilitarian point of view, is it not better to do harm to the one innocent prisoner (by keeping them in jail) then to harm 5 more people in society by releasing all 10 prisoners (not knowing which is the innocent one)?

[cardcounter0]

"Since when is nature's wrath a punishment imposed by us?"

It's not. The author is saying the innocent should suffer nature's wrath (because aid should be withheld) because of the collective guilt of the nation.

You said the article didn't say that. I showed the direct quote where it did.

You have shown that you do not understand or comprehend the article you posted. You are also trying (very badly) to twist my responses into saying something I am not, either deliberately, or because of this same reading comprehension failure.

Last post from me, useless to write anything further, since you can't comprehend what you read, or deliberately refuse to, even going so far as to lie about what the article says.

[cardcounter0]

which is why the accused is innocent until proven guilty, has a right to a trial, has a right to legal council, and strict standards of beyond a doubt certainty for a conviction.

By your logic, if it can be shown that the majority of people accused of a crime are actually guilty, then when anyone is accused of a crime they should just immediately be punished.

By doing away with any sort of trial or evidence, this would eliminate the chance that any guilty might go free. I think the Taliban in Afganistan practiced this form of Police, Judge, and Executioner form of Justice. You might want to move there.

[Broken Glass Can]

You seem to be suggesting that we are obligated to send aid to evil people because there are innocent people mixed among them. By that definition we must aid everyone, since who does not have some innocents in their midsts.

We should send aid to bin Laden, I am sure there are some innocents living nearby. If he used that aid for terrorism, well thats just too bad, we were trying to help innocents.

I say we have the right to decide that some innocents can not be reached without creating more harm in the process. Unfortunate but true, and we must regretfully take the path of not aiding them to avoid worse consequences in the future.

We bombed civilians in Germany in WWII, and I think it was the right thing to do, even though innocent people died.

[Broken Glass Can]

Here is a quote from your first post:
[ QUOTE ]
The author also threw in that all German citizens should have been punished, since the country did evil, and as citizens they were all guilty.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is not the same thing as you are now saying in your posts. I can comprehend the difference, can you?

I'm trying to argue ideas, not who said what. In your later posts, what we are saying is a lot closer. The USA is not "punishing" anyone by not sending aid.

Neither the author nor I ever said that the "citizens were all guilty", these are words you wrote, and now you are pretending you didn't say this?

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
By your logic, if it can be shown that the majority of people accused of a crime are actually guilty, then when anyone is accused of a crime they should just immediately be punished.

[/ QUOTE ]

Talk about twisting words. I was talking about people already convicted in our legal system with all its protections.

It is because we make as few mistakes as possible, that we can reasonably say that more harm would come from releasing a group of mostly bad criminals, than by keeping the few innocent in jail.

[cardcounter0]

That well may be true. But I don't need justification for that by some BS that it is the victims fault because they are "bad" or lacking in a "moral compass". And that we are "good" and therefore not going to help the "bad" people.

If bombing innocent civilians was the right thing to do in WWII, then it was the right thing to do. Don't BS me with they weren't innocent civilians they were actually evil because they were helping an evil nation.

If your action is right, moral, and just, then you don't need to twist and turn and justify, now do you?

If you find yourself looking for excuses like "we won't give aid because they won't accept aid from non-muslim dressed providers" or "we won't give aid because their leaders had bad policies in the past", then your actions probably aren't the moral, just, right things you are trying to make them out to be.

[cardcounter0]

And as I pointed out (and you twisted), it breaks down when it comes to the death penality. Many people believe it is better to keep the guilty in jail rather than execute, on the chance you might execute an innocent person. You were the one that twisted that into throwing the jail doors open.

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
And as I pointed out (and you twisted), it breaks down when it comes to the death penality.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never discussed the death penalty in this thread at all. It is irrelevant to the discussion - it is a red herring you throw in to confuse the issue. Try to discuss the issues at hand without throwing in red herrings.

Please stay on topic. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[cardcounter0]

Punishment is not the natural disaster. The Punishment is withholding the aid.

The author says that all Germans should be punished (aid withheld) because of the collective guilt of the nation.

One more time, read your article:
"However, because the majority was engaged in genocide, the very few who did not advocate it would have to suffer Nature's wrath along with the genocidal monsters."

Let's break it down:
"suffer Nature's wrath" doesn't refer to the actual natural disaster, how would you suggest we stop that from happening?
the "suffer" part is from the withholding of aid after the fact.

Punish (withhold aid) the innocent along with the guilty, least we help some of the guilty along with the innocent.

Now how about this for an idea?

Supplying things like food and water to a disaster-struck civilian population really isn't supporting the country's political policy and "evilness".

In fact, if the country is truely evil, by denying aid to the civilian population, you weaken it further, letting those in power have a tighter grip and able to increase the ease in which they can carry out their evil policies.

If the civilian population was given food, and water, and much more, even guns, than maybe you wouldn't have to worry about the corrupt evil leaders and their evil policies any more, now would you?

[cardcounter0]

To completely condense the author's article:

"Kill them all, (or at least deny them aid), and let God sort them out".

I disagree.

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
The Punishment is withholding the aid.


[/ QUOTE ]

Withholding aid is not punishment.

We know what cardcounter and I think. How many of the rest of you think that withholding aid is punishment?

[cardcounter0]

Wagers anyone?

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
To completely condense the author's article:

"Kill them all, (or at least deny them aid), and let God sort them out".

I disagree.

[/ QUOTE ]

To completely condense the author's article:

"Think about the consequences of your actions, even those that on the face of them seem easy choices. Actions have consequences not only to current disaster victims but also future potential victims of evildoers."

I agree that we must think about such things.

[RogerZBT]

[ QUOTE ]
Withholding aid is not punishment.

We know what cardcounter and I think. How many of the rest of you think that withholding aid is punishment?

[/ QUOTE ]

Withholding aid is a form of punishment.

[RogerZBT]

Would the author rethink her premise if a Palestinian wrote the same basic article in opposition of American aid to Israel? Charges of government-sanctioned 'Crimes Against Humanity,' apartheid based on religion, and persecution of the Palestinians are leveled against the Israeli government constantly.

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
Charges of government-sanctioned 'Crimes Against Humanity,' apartheid based on religion, and persecution of the Palestinians are leveled against the Israeli government constantly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the author's point was that we must think about who we are donating to. In the case of Israel we have had plenty of time to think about the charges made against them, and have made our decision based on the credence we give to such charges.

We haven't really had much chance to think about the tsunami countries. We may think about it and do it anyway, it is just important to think about it.

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
Withholding aid is a form of punishment.

[/ QUOTE ]

So based on both of your posts, if we decided to withhold aid to Israel based on the charges against them, we would be punishing the people of Israel.

This logic would seem to almost compel us to aid Israel so as not to perceive ourselves as punishers of innocent people.

[RogerZBT]

And we've reached the "I'm going to take two unrelated statements you made and crudely try to force them together to make my point" part of the program.

Aren't you skilled enough in debate to not have to resort to that?

[Broken Glass Can]

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth.

You say withholding aid is punishment, and you also suggest aid to Israel might be withheld for cause.

Why bring up the second point if you think it has no connection to the first?

[RogerZBT]

They were two distinct points addressing two distinct issues. The fact that they're next to each other is irrelevant.

Also, I never suggested we could/should withhold aid to Israel for cause. I asked how the author, a writer for two Israeli publications, would feel if the situation were reversed.

[Broken Glass Can]

Fair enough. I don't really care who the author is. The issue to me is should we consider the character of the people we are dealing with and potential future consequences.

I think we do consider this, in Iraq, in relation to Israel, and in many other places. We should not neglect to do this in Southeast Asia.

I didn't assume you were against aid to Israel, I also often post ideas and arguments not always my own to entice others to discuss the issues. Notice in this thread I have never said "do not send aid", only "let's think about the consequences".

[Cyrus]

I will assume that the question is asked on humanitarian and not purely strategic terms. In the latter case, and provided that you are hostile to Nazi Germany, you certainly don't help.

But in the former case (as is the case right now with South East Asia and the tsunami), you most certainly help your fellow man.

Your article (http://www.jewishinternetassociation.org/articles/goodtree_02jan05a.html) is badmouthing the actions of governments mostly. But even when the people themselves are backward, racist or bigoted, we should be helping. (Should we be helping out of the Twin Towers only those persons trapped inside who have a clean police record? If among them was a known and convicted paedophile rapist trying to get out, were we supposed to let him burn? We? Whose decision is it to let him die or help him live, in any case? Not ours, not morally, if morality has any meaning.)

The article reports the bigotry and the backwardness exhibited by some tsunami victims, when they refused Israeli aid or when they insisted that foreign women wear traditional Muslim clothes when coming to the area to help out. I say that this is indeed bigoted and very backward behaviour and is often quite insulting, practically hostile.

But if our decision to help was based on moral grounds, then the attitude exhibited by the victims, an attitude that amounts to ingratitude, should not stop us from helping out : We already established that we are helping out selflessly and not because we want recognition or to impose our own codes of civilisation on them or to gain some material advantage.

We just the doctor.

[chabibi]

as wrong as it may be, the united states gives financial aid to almost every developing country in the world. many of these countries have dismal human rights track records, however the US continues to send aid. Before 9/11 a large part of afghanistans GDP was foreign aid from the united states. americas policy is clearly to help the evil if it means helping the innocent as well. i dont imagine that the rules would suddenly change because of a tsunami

[TakeMeToTheRiver]

This is a poorly-written myopic hate-filled article.

She makes completely unsupported generalizations and draws illogical conclusions.

But thanks for posting.

[Mark H]

withholding aid has nothing to do with punishment.

Maek H

[TakeMeToTheRiver]

The article says:

[ QUOTE ]
Regarding Israel's offer of aid, apparently Muslims would rather be dead than touched by a Jew. In a repeat of Iran's pig-headed stance after a devastating earthquake there, Sri Lanka turned down Israel's offer of help, unless no Jews came. They'd take Jewish money, Jewish goods, Jewish medical supplies, but no Jews (or very few). Israel, which has one of the best search and rescue teams was ready to dash over there, find survivors and set up hospitals. Sri Lanka said 'no thanks, we'd rather let our people die than have Israelis here.'


[/ QUOTE ]

As it turns out, this statement has little factual basis and manipulates the truth.

(An interesting note: Sri Lanka and Israel have close relations and Sri Lanka is believed to be one of the largest purchasers of Israeli-made weapons.)

[Gamblor]

You actually said something worthwhile.

I didn't feel the need to respond to anything here, as most of the arguments here are kinda dull, and there isn't much to argue (leave it to Cyrus to find something!), but you still have Most Favoured Nit status.

[CORed]

So basicly what you are saying is that we should just let the people on the coasts Indonesia, Sri Lanka and Thailand die of starvation and disease because some people in those countries or their governments are doing things we consider evil. You gotta love Christian charity.

[CORed]

So you feel that living in Indonesia, Sri Lanka or Thailand is the equivalent of having been convicted of a crime?

[CORed]

What percentage of tsunami survivors do you think are engaged in the evil practices, cited in the article? The fact that child prostitution is going on in Thailand doen't indicate that some poor fisherman whose village and fishing boat were destroyed by the tsunami and now has no way to feed himself was running a kiddie brothel. You seem to think that all of these people deserve to die because some of them might be criminals.

[Daithi]

My creditials -- pretty damn conservative (so now you no my bias).

Would I provide relief to Nazi Germany -- NO!

Did I try to provide some relief to tsunami victims that happened to be Muslims -- YES!

I have a lot of problems with Muslims in general, but I don't think that Muslims as a whole are at the same level of depravity than that of the Nazi's bent on world domination and extermination. Yes, it was Muslims that attacked our country, that discriminate against women, that are vile in their racism, that still practice slavery, and that even includes the sexual slavery of children.

BUT, these are not the general traits of ALL, or even the majority, of Muslims. Now I may give you that the majority of Muslims may hate America and Israel but that is about as 'bad' as the majority of Muslims are. MOST Muslims are not raping children, working in the slave trade, or participating in a Jihad against the West. I don't have to understand their value systems, or to agree with their values and actions, to understand that 'today' they can use my help.

[natedogg]

Can I say "Ding ding ding" without pissing off nicky g?

/images/graemlins/smile.gif

natedogg

[arabie]

You are right. After taking Philosophy of Law 210, i learned that laws are made for their value, not their purpose! This is the basis for constitutional law!

For example, we could catch more pedophile pornography if we illegaly searched every home, however, our constitutional rights would be evaded. As a result, we will only search based on an approriate code of conduct that respects the constitution and, therefore, catch less criminals. This is the case because our laws are made for theirr value, not their purpose.

Similarily, the enforcement of laws should be respected for value, not their purpose. Their purpose is to convict the guilty and not the innocent. Their value is the prevention of further crimes. Consequentially, we gain more by respecting the value.

Some may say that constitutionally every person has rights and one innocent man isn't worth a thousand guilty, and blah, blah.. But you cannot argue the value or consquential benefit, on a cost-benefit scale, when compared to just locking that one innocent man up. Maybe this just an an opinion though.

[nicky g]

"Can I say "Ding ding ding" without pissing off nicky g? "

No.