No. I think that love is the cure, so no, I don't find that delusional. — All sight

It's not always delusional to think that. But in the specific case of Hitler (and those like him) it seems to be, doesn't it? At least I don't know what you mean by suggesting that could have worked. Maybe you can spell it out in more detail so I can understand. What would have been your strategy of love towards the Nazis that would have stopped their genocide of the Jews in WWII? If you could make it clear, perhaps I may understand.

Keeping in mind that I'm addressing like the worst possible scenario, and none in which we face, or I would certainly hope that everyone would indeed walk their talk.

Loving people from a distance doesn't do much. But being a loving respectful person that people care about the disapproval of, and approval of in their lives makes a big difference. I could not save everyone, but I would hope to introduce and proponent a climate and environment of love and understanding, and disapproval of abuse and violence which would spread. Just like you couldn't personally kill all the nazis, and would require a concerted team effort, I would as well.

That's the way it can work. Not on the internet though. It's too impersonal. — Baden

Yeah that's a good point, although I think I've had limited success dealing with angry people on social media sites not known for charitable engagement. You're not going to win them all, of course, but I do think the effort is important. Nietzsche's warning to those who battle monsters is something I try to keep in mind.

If everyone thought like that the world would be a much finer place. But when some don't, it becomes inappropriate to make it a hard and fast principle and can result in greater misery--as not using violent means to stop Hitler most certainly would have. But to give another example, suppose you have a young child who is attacked by someone wielding a knife and you also happen to have a knife, do you use it on the attacker to defend your child? I'm trying to understand how far you would take this.

True. I've had as much success with harsh words as with reasoned argument though I think. That being very little in both cases. :)

Just like you couldn't personally kill all the nazis, and would require a concerted team effort, I would as well. — All sight

Sorry, do you mean here you actually would help to kill the Nazis?

I don't have to hate someone to defend someone from them. I can still think that love could have cured them, even if it as a matter of fact did not, and act with a heavy heart. If your wife, mother, or someone else you loved dearly were about to kill your child with the knife, you'd be obliged to prevent this, but this says nothing about having to hate or abuse them in conversation.

Ok, I'm getting a clearer view of your position now. Thanks.

I'm saying that I would be more loving to those around me, and they would be more loving to everyone around them, and it would require a collective effort, just like stopping them with force does. Couldn't do it all by myself.

I mentioned this previously, but my own political views shifted radically about 15 years ago (if not longer) in large part through the kindness of some radical Leftists on a RATM message board. Their patient and charitable treatment of me as a (they would say misguided) human being were just as important as the actual arguments they put forth against free markets, limited govt., etc. Both aspects were essential to the slow, cumulative change in my overall outlook.

But perhaps I'm an exception to the general rule that people don't change their minds through online debates.

Hope springs eternal. :halo:



Again, I agree with the sentiment and we have also agreed that extreme measures may be necessary to combat evil even if done with a "heavy heart" as you put it. We would probably just disagree on what measures were appropriate for what situation. And your call for greater love and respect in conversation in general is laudable.

It is really appropriate to be abusive? Like "You believe what! How could you possibly!"... — All sight

Really? That's your example of being abusive? So, even this very reply in which I am being expressive with my disbelief at your comment constitutes abuse? :brow:

Lock me up and throw away the key!

It is really appropriate to be abusive? Like "You believe what! How could you possibly!", and "fool, idiot, wicked person!", and all things of that nature. Not just a tone, but literal insults, and brow beating... — All sight

OK, some rhetorics 101 here. It's not about being abusive. It's about projecting an arrogant posture, that infuriates the opposition so you get to argue on a non level playing field. Is that a dirty trick? Sure. Does it work? Sometimes. Depends on the temperament of the interlocutor. I tend to not do that here, since most of the folks on here know me from way back. It's not particularly conducive to cultivating social ties. :)

would say that once a disagreement reaches that level of emotion, each side is no longer absorbing information to analyze, and is instead defending their identity. — Lif3r

This to me feels a lot like what happens.

OK, some rhetorics 101 here. — Ying

There is an actual University Course offered Rhetoric 101 but alas not at my son's campus. I was really intrigued to hear what the outline and substance was to this class. It fell under "Humanities" as the courses satisfaction.

I think that you should ask yourself, "would I behave this way if I were trapped with them on an elevator?", and not anonymously on the internet. Hopefully we can muster something approximating the same level of restraint.

It's not always delusional to think that. But in the specific case of Hitler (and those like him) it seems to be, doesn't it? — Baden

So, how far should one go with Jesus' instruction in Matthew?

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you — Jesus

Is it a "stumbling block" or sound and moral advice?

Some countries which have good reputations (Ireland and Sweden, for example) and some which didn't at the time (fascist Spain, for instance) were "neutral" during WWII. They either helped Germany (Sweden traded high grade ore and steel products with Germany) or they did nothing.

A world war might have been avoidable and Hitler might have been throttled had we (the future allied states) declared war on Germany in 1938 at the time of Hitler's annexations of the Sudetenland and Austria, and at the very latest, the invasion of Poland in September of 1939. Of course, that didn't happen and one can list compelling reasons why it didn't. The US didn't declare war until December of 41, by which time Europe was pretty much in Hitler's hands, and more besides.

Similarly, Japan should have been resisted earlier. Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931. How much resistance did Japan meet then?

I am not sure that Jesus' admonition is workable for individuals, outside of an impending Kingdom of God. It isn't workable for nations. When it comes to foreign relations, nations don't have morals, and they don't have friends or enemies. They have "interests". Recognizing the nation's interests early enough is a large part of success. What, exactly, a nation's interests really are at any given moment isn't always obvious.

A nation's domestic interests are not always obvious either. There is so much churn, so much sturm and drang sometimes that it is difficult to separate out groups, mobs, and crowds, never mind deciding about individuals.

What does it mean to be moral? To fight and destroy all of the evil, or to be the change you want to see in the world? To demonstrate what you would wish others would be like? What kind of hypocrisy was Jesus talking about?

More than that, I do believe in a real connection to the divine, that is severed through sin, and can be regained through confession, and change. To me, this is by far the highest good, and in itself sustaining of a person through all measure of trials. Nothing is comparable to the goodness of it, and nothing is comparable to the pain of its absence.

I think you will find that quite a few "rhetoric" classes are offered, but they no longer appear under the heading of "rhetoric". Too too old fashioned. The term now is "writing" or (my term) communication production. There is a course at the U of M writing program in "visual rhetoric" for instance. This isn't entirely new -- "visual literacy" has been a thing since the early 1970s... some 50 years, now.

It is really appropriate to be abusive? — All sight

Let's flip the question around.

Is it appropriate to be a fantasy victim?

Is it appropriate to not take responsibility for one's own emotional experience of the Internet?

Is it appropriate for me to expect you, a total stranger somewhere in the world, to worry yourself about the management of my brain?

Is is appropriate for me to try to protect my ego by attempting to manage the words of everyone on the Internuts via a blame and shame manipulation by guilt campaign, instead of focusing my efforts on managing the one brain I have the most access to, my own?

So it is appropriate? I am at fault for caring, or being concerned with it?

So it is appropriate? I am at fault for caring, or being concerned with it? — All sight

I'm not blaming you for anything, and your question is surely a very normal one. I'm attempting to reply with what I hope is a "unnormal" challenge, for that is how I see the purpose of philosophy.

I'm attempting to be rational and helpful. None of us wish to experience emotional distress. So what is the most effective way to approach that goal?

1) I could attempt to manage everyone on the Internet by threatening them with blame and shame if they say things that upset me. That's a couple of billion people I now have to manage.

OR:

2) I could instead attempt to manage the brain that is hearing what's been written or said, my brain. That's one person I have to manage, the one person I have the most control over.

Should I succeed in managing my brain, the mind that is hearing what everyone is saying, then I need not worry about what the billion people might say to me. They might love me, they might hate me, and whatever the case, that is their situation to deal with.

Most people seem to approach this issue through the lens of morality, with a focus on the writer. I'm attempting to approach the issue through the lens of reason, with the focus on the reader.

Doesn't this than apply to you as well? Why aren't you just managing your brain? Why aren't you following this advice?

I think it's both morally okay and entertaining to be abusive in the abstract (re. what one considers to be stupid ideas and whoever holds them in general). But not directly to the person, no.

But of course there's a question of degree and threshold there (how much an abstract criticism "hits home"), so there's room for disagreement on where the line is.

But discussions would be a bit dull without a few insults thrown around here and there. As with most things human, discussion is a bit of an art.

I think that it is indicative of an adversarial approach (I refrain from cursing in the abstract as well. It's unpleasant there as well.), where one is battling, and there are winners and losers. I don't think it has to be that way, we can both win!

I think that tone counts for a lot. Disagreements don't have to feel awful, it's a pleasure to disagree with a kind considerate person, as it is a pleasure to be in their presence in all situations. It is unpleasant to be around an abusive person, regardless of how much you agree with them in the abstract.

So, how far should one go with Jesus' instruction in Matthew?

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you
— Jesus

Is it a "stumbling block" or sound and moral advice? — Bitter Crank

It is well known to all that following Jesus gets you crucified. It is a recipe for virtue, not for success. That's why we tend to vote for arseholes, in the hope that in covering their own arses they will accidentally cover ours.

I do believe in a real connection to the divine, that is severed through sin, and can be regained through confession, and change. To me, this is by far the highest good, and in itself sustaining of a person through all measure of trials. Nothing is comparable to the goodness of it, and nothing is comparable to the pain of its absence. — All sight

From the POV of the believer, this is entirely consistent and valid. When one falls away from belief, there is nothing quite like faith to take its place.

But what we can do individually has no counterpart for collective action, unless the individuals in the collectivity are extremely well aligned. In most cases (real life) people belong to collectivities provisionally and without strict alignment.

It is a recipe for virtue, not for success.


I would say that this depends on the individual's intentions, and on their definition of success.

Could we not say that virtue is successful?

Could we not say that virtue is successful? — Lif3r

You can say it if you like, the question is whether you believe it yourself or just hope that others will. Personally, I find it difficult to call crucifixion success, but then I am weak-willed and self-centered.

Personally, I find it difficult to call crucifixion success, but then I am weak-willed and self-centered. — unenlightened

It certainly wouldn't be my cup of blood either. I like my flagellations short and sweet.