18 Aug 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau KNo, your definition of "material cooperation" differs from the legal one. Joining a terrorist organization is sufficient to have "materially cooperated" with them. You don't seem to have any clear idea of what the concept means but keep falling back to the term, somehow believing that it supports your argument. You are very confused and your confusion makes it difficult to discuss the matter with you. But I'll try once more.
[/b]Your subsequent post clearly show that I was correct as all you seem to want to do is argue semantics rather than the issue at hand.
You just do not seem to understand what material cooperation is at all, as illustrated here:
Since when is the test of a personal moral error whether it "would have done the world much better" if you hadn't m ...[text shortened]... .being a listed member of the Hitler Youth with minimal association with Hitlerian ideology?
Dr. Scribbles original question was: Was the Pope coerced or manipulated into joining the Hitler Youth?
You said: Coerced.
Presumably, at that time, you felt that voluntarily joining the HY would have been a moral error. Apparently, in the space of a few pages, you have changed your mind. Now it is perfectly acceptable to join an organization which supports an ideology of racial superiority and justifies conquest and mass murder IF the alternative is you might personally suffer some amount of inconvenience. I find such an argument bizarre. You claim that the RCC agrees with this type of argument. If you are correct in this assertion, then both you and the RCC have a serious moral deficiency.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
18 Aug 08
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderNo, your definition of "material cooperation" differs from the legal one.
No, your definition of "material cooperation" differs from the legal one. Joining a terrorist organization is sufficient to have "materially cooperated" with them. You don't seem to have any clear idea of what the concept means but keep falling back to the term, somehow believing that it supports your argument. You are very confused and your confusion ma are correct in this assertion, then both you and the RCC have a serious moral deficiency.
Why would I care about the legal definition? We have been discussing this entirely from the Catholic moral perspective. Under the Catholic definition of material cooperation it is entirely acceptable to be part of an evil organisation, so long as the reasons for that cooperation are proportionate. Why else do you think that Catholics pay taxes to pro-abortion governments or continue to support charities that sponsor abortion? You are aware that abortion is at the top of the Catholic list of sins, right?
Presumably, at that time, you felt that voluntarily joining the HY would have been a moral error. Apparently, in the space of a few pages, you have changed your mind.
No; I still believe the pope was coerced into joining. He already had one family member killed by the Nazis and justifiably feared that should he refuse to join, then he endangered his own life. There were also economic reprisals against those who did not join (privation of tuition support). This is coercion.
Now it is perfectly acceptable to join an organization which supports an ideology of racial superiority and justifies conquest and mass murder IF the alternative is you might personally suffer some amount of inconvenience.
No; it has to be a proportionate reason. The evil of the alternative to cooperation must be at least equal to the evil caused by cooperation. I put the question again: do you think that jeopardising his life, and possibly others, and throwing away his education, is proportionate to simply being a (non-active) member of the HY? If you think yes, you are quite possibly a nutjob.
18 Aug 08
Originally posted by Conrau KIf someone's a "nutjob" for not joining the Hitler Youth, then a lot of conscientious Germans were "nutjobs". Some of these "nutjobs" went so far as to resist the Nazis in far more active ways. What "nutjobs"!
[b]No, your definition of "material cooperation" differs from the legal one.
Why would I care about the legal definition? We have been discussing this entirely from the Catholic moral perspective. Under the Catholic definition of material cooperation it is entirely acceptable to be part of an evil organisation, so long as the reasons for that cooper ...[text shortened]... mply being a (non-active) member of the HY? If you think yes, you are quite possibly a nutjob.[/b]
You and RCC moral theory are depraved to not identify that supporting evil is morally wrong if the alternative is merely some personal inconvenience.
Paying taxes to a government who's laws allow someone to do something you don't like is a bit different from joining an organization who's ideology supports racial superiority, mass murder of inferiors and conquest. Again, if you can't see that distinction, you have a serious case of moral blindness.
18 Aug 08
1 edit
Let's look at the sympathetic article that was cited concerning Ratzinger for some facts you are ignoring, Conrau:
http://bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/cjrelations/topics/new_pope_defied_nazis.htm
"Being sent to a concentration camp for not joining the Hitler Youth would have been an ''extreme'' punishment, but ''it was very difficult for youth who didn't join, and they could be ostracized,''"
How inconvenient!
"He said he tried to avoid Hitler Youth meetings, creating a dilemma. He needed proof of attendance to get a tuition discount, which his father -- a retired policeman -- badly needed. So he finessed it, according to his book."
So he was willing to risk the tuition discount by not attending meetings (inconvenient), so he got a teacher to lie for him (presumably having that teacher risk punishment). How noble!
There is nothing in the article suggesting he faced death or any serious consequences for not joining the HY and he and his family did other things that could have risked punishment as well. His actions fail even your weak "proportionate" test (which I still maintain is an invalid one).
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
19 Aug 08
Originally posted by no1marauderIf someone's a "nutjob" for not joining the Hitler Youth, then a lot of conscientious Germans were "nutjobs". Some of these "nutjobs" went so far as to resist the Nazis in far more active ways. What "nutjobs"!
If someone's a "nutjob" for not joining the Hitler Youth, then a lot of conscientious Germans were "nutjobs". Some of these "nutjobs" went so far as to resist the Nazis in far more active ways. What "nutjobs"!
You and RCC moral theory are depraved to not identify that supporting evil is morally wrong if the alternative is merely some pers ...[text shortened]... ain, if you can't see that distinction, you have a serious case of moral blindness.
You must be really desperate if you need to resort to these strawman arguments. When did I say that those who refused to join the HY were nutjobs? When did I say that opponents of the Nazis were nutjobs? I said you are a nutjob if you believe that a fourteen year old's joining the HY is proportionate to the consequences of not joining.
Paying taxes to a government who's laws allow someone to do something you don't like is a bit different from joining an organization who's ideology supports racial superiority, mass murder of inferiors and conquest.
Paying taxes to a government that facilitates the mutilation and destruction of innocent foetuses is a bit different to being a non-active member of an adolescent gang. See how unhelpful rhetorical ploys can be?
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
19 Aug 08
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderSo he was willing to risk the tuition discount by not attending meetings (inconvenient), so he got a teacher to lie for him (presumably having that teacher risk punishment). How noble!
Let's look at the sympathetic article that was cited concerning Ratzinger for some facts you are ignoring, Conrau:
http://bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/cjrelations/topics/new_pope_defied_nazis.htm
"Being sent to a concentration camp for not joining the Hitler Youth would have been an ''extreme'' punishment, but [b]''it was very difficul even your weak "proportionate" test (which I still maintain is an invalid one).[/b]
I am not arguing a case for his nobility, but challenging whether he has committed moral error. And exactly what was so morally reprehensible? He was a reluctant member who apparently never attended meetings. Wow. How abominable.
19 Aug 08
2 edits
Originally posted by Conrau KWhat part of this is sooooooooooooooooo hard to understand:
[b] So he was willing to risk the tuition discount by not attending meetings (inconvenient), so he got a teacher to lie for him (presumably having that teacher risk punishment). How noble!
I am not arguing a case for his nobility, but challenging whether he has committed moral error. And exactly what was so morally reprehensible? He was a reluctant member who apparently never attended meetings. Wow. How abominable.[/b]
so he got a teacher to lie for him (presumably having that teacher risk punishment).
Is it moral to get someone else to risk punishment in your stead so you can avoid the consequences of your own decisions? Maybe in Conrau-RCC Bizarro World it is.
And mere membership in a group representing an evil ideology is moral error. Whether you don't want to be bothered to go to the meetings or not is irrelevant.
19 Aug 08
2 edits
Originally posted by Conrau KSorry, but your exact quote was:
[b]If someone's a "nutjob" for not joining the Hitler Youth, then a lot of conscientious Germans were "nutjobs". Some of these "nutjobs" went so far as to resist the Nazis in far more active ways. What "nutjobs"!
You must be really desperate if you need to resort to these strawman arguments. When did I say that those who refused to join the HY were n non-active member of an adolescent gang. See how unhelpful rhetorical ploys can be?[/b]
I put the question again: do you think that jeopardising his life, and possibly others, and throwing away his education, is proportionate to simply being a (non-active) member of the HY? If you think yes, you are quite possibly a nutjob.
There's no way to escape the logical inference that someone who did refuse to join the HY under the same circumstances, has made a ridiculous decision and is "quite possibly a nutjob". That's not a "strawman"; that's what you said. Deal with it.
Of course, your summary of his choice is factually inaccurate as even the sympathetic article quoted made clear. But hey, I guess dishonesty isn't a moral error if you have a good reason for being dishonest like not wanting the present Pope to look bad.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
19 Aug 08
Originally posted by no1marauderso he got a teacher to lie for him (presumably having that teacher risk punishment).
What part of this is sooooooooooooooooo hard to understand:
so he got a teacher to lie for him (presumably having that teacher risk punishment).
Is it moral to get someone else to risk punishment in your stead so you can avoid the consequences of your own decisions? Maybe in Conrau-RCC Bizarro World it is.
...[text shortened]... moral error. Whether you don't want to be bothered to go to the meetings or not is irrelevant.
Nothing in the article suggests he got the teacher to lie for him; in fact, nothing in the article states that the teacher lied at all.
And mere membership in a group representing an evil ideology is moral error. Whether you don't want to be bothered to go to the meetings or not is irrelevant.
No doubt you will be understanding when Catholics object conscientiously to paying taxes to a government that supports the 'evil ideology' of the abortion movement.
19 Aug 08
2 edits
Originally posted by Conrau KReally? Can you read?
[/b]so he got a teacher to lie for him (presumably having that teacher risk punishment).
Nothing in the article suggests he got the teacher to lie for him; in fact, nothing in the article states that the teacher lied at all.
And mere membership in a group representing an evil ideology is moral error. Whether you don't want to be bother ...[text shortened]... y to paying taxes to a government that supports the 'evil ideology' of the abortion movement.
He said he tried to avoid Hitler Youth meetings, creating a dilemma. He needed proof of attendance to get a tuition discount, which his father -- a retired policeman -- badly needed. So he finessed it, according to his book.
''Thank God, there was a math teacher who understood. He was himself a Nazi party member, but an honest man who told me, 'Just go so we have it,''' he recalled. ''But when he saw that I simply didn't want to, he said: 'I understand, I'll take care of it.' And so I was free of it.''
Since he supposedly needed proof of attendance to get a tuition discount, how do you think the teacher "took care of it"??
Your ridiculous comparison to voluntarily joining an evil group and paying taxes to a government that allows people to do things you don't like has been dealt with. It is a non sequitur (those are okay to use too I assume if the proportionate harm in doing so in overridden by the proportionate good - in this case attempting to save your flawed argument).
Besides, I thought Jesus expressly discussed the issue.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
19 Aug 08
Originally posted by no1marauderThere's no way to escape the logical inference that someone who did refuse to join the HY under the same circumstances, has made a ridiculous decision and is "quite possibly a nutjob". That's not a "strawman"; that's what you said. Deal with it.
Sorry, but your exact quote was:
I put the question again: do you think that jeopardising his life, and possibly others, and throwing away his education, is proportionate to simply being a (non-active) member of the HY? If you think yes, you are quite possibly a nutjob.
There's no way to escape the logical inferen ...[text shortened]... ou have a good reason for being dishonest like not wanting the present Pope to look bad.
Again: when did I claim that those who resisted the Nazis were nutjobs? I have only claimed that a person is a nutjob if he regards being a non-active member of the HV as disproportionately worse than the consequences of not joining (even if they might only be so low as loss of tuition discounts.) There is no logical inference from that claim to your exaggerative straw man.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
19 Aug 08
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderSince he supposedly needed proof of attendance to get a tuition discount, how do you think the teacher "took care of it"??
Really? Can you read?
He said he tried to avoid Hitler Youth meetings, creating a dilemma. He needed proof of attendance to get a tuition discount, which his father -- a retired policeman -- badly needed. [b]So he finessed it, according to his book.
''Thank God, there was a math teacher who understood. He was himself a Nazi part ument).
Besides, I thought Jesus expressly discussed the issue.[/b]
Apparently the teacher was a member of the Nazi party; he could have enjoyed a number of privileges and connections. But the point is that Ratzinger did not ask the teacher to intervene on his behalf (apparently he just showed intransigent reluctance to be part of the organisation...which is surely what you would consider moral); nor does the article claim that the teacher lied. Your two readings of this scene are unsubstantiated by the article.
Your ridiculous comparison to voluntarily joining an evil group and paying taxes to a government that allows people to do things you don't like has been dealt with.
But, for the Catholic Church, abortion is murder; it is intrinsically wrong and there is no substantial moral difference between the millions that Hitler had murdered and the millions of deaths that the government allows and even promotes through embryonic research. Yet you think a Catholic should unequivocally resist the Hitler regime but not governments which promote abortion. You are asking for double standards.
19 Aug 08
Originally posted by Conrau KWHAT???????? IF someone's a "nutjob" if he regards joining the HY as morally wrong and disproportionately worse than some personal inconvenience, then those who didn't join as an act of conscience are "quite possibly nutjobs" according to your argument. That is no "strawman"; that's your position. If you want to retreat from it fine, but stop falsely claiming that that is not what you said. It's right there in your post for all to see.
[b]There's no way to escape the logical inference that someone who did refuse to join the HY under the same circumstances, has made a ridiculous decision and is "quite possibly a nutjob". That's not a "strawman"; that's what you said. Deal with it.
Again: when did I claim that those who resisted the Nazis were nutjobs? I have only claimed that a pers ...[text shortened]... discounts.) There is no logical inference from that claim to your exaggerative straw man.[/b]
19 Aug 08
Originally posted by Conrau KYour reading of the passage is bizarre (as most of your factual claims are). A kid brings the problem to a teacher, hoping the teacher will fix it for him. The teacher does and there is apparently only one way to do so. I won't bother to debate it with you anymore; the passage is reasonably clear to those who, unlike you, are not ridiculously biased, stubborn and incapable of admitting error.
[b]Since he supposedly needed proof of attendance to get a tuition discount, how do you think the teacher "took care of it"??
Apparently the teacher was a member of the Nazi party; he could have enjoyed a number of privileges and connections. But the point is that Ratzinger did not ask the teacher to intervene on his behalf (apparently he just showed ...[text shortened]... itler regime but not governments which promote abortion. You are asking for double standards.[/b]
No one said anything about "unequivocally resisting"; that's a strawman. You mentioned paying taxes. Jesus already spoke to that argument. Bitch at him. At any rate, the US government doesn't support abortion like the Nazis supported genocide. That difference seems to escape your weird moral compass.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
19 Aug 08
Originally posted by no1marauderWHAT???????? IF someone's a "nutjob" if he regards joining the HY as morally wrong and disproportionately worse than some personal inconvenience, then those who didn't join as an act of conscience are "quite possibly nutjobs" according to your argument.
WHAT???????? IF someone's a "nutjob" if he regards joining the HY as morally wrong and disproportionately worse than some personal inconvenience, then those who didn't join as an act of conscience are "quite possibly nutjobs" according to your argument. That is no "strawman"; that's your position. If you want to retreat from it fine, but stop falsely claiming that that is not what you said. It's right there in your post for all to see.
No. A person can overtly resist the Nazis and still still recognise that his resistance is futile and that not resisting would be proportionate with resisting. He can say "I know that my resistance will do nothing and that if I did not resist, I could keep my life, which I am entitled to. But I will resist because it is the heroic thing to do." That is a counterexample to your putative "logical inference". And if tjis martyr did claim that his futile resistance would produce much better good than unwilling material cooperation, I would consider him a nutjob. I would think his criteria for evaluating good and bad suggested mental derangement.