Dan and others, what I have found interesting in the responses so far at least is the latching on to a passing comment ‘or even abortion’ which I would probably have been better to leave out. Otherwise I was very careful to avoid any suggestion of killing anybody. I posed a reasonable question ‘in my opinion’ (remember that so-called sacred right?) in which I asked which people could we have one without? I never mentioned murder, euthanasia, assassination or any other means of achieving any end.
I believe YOU have gonflated the question according to your own view, and I have no problem with that but suggesting that any subject is not worthy of discussion is probably the most dangerous of the lot. You may recall the statement that ’ for evil to succeed is for good people to do or say nothing’. I subscribe totally to that view.
Unlike your close your eyes and ears approach, I prefer to look at the world as it is, and not be blind to the fact that there are bad people out there, you obviously either disagree or prefer not to think about it.
To whoever brought up this nonsensical ‘Godwin’s Law’ as an argument, get real - even Godwin has disavowed the comment. It pre-supposes that Hitler never existed and never did anything evil which can only exist in a staunch Nazi mind - which I will do the courtesy of assuming is not yours.
That someone else assumes I made the point in humour - well, not really as I would have thought the opening sentence might have made clear.
I am doing the same by assuming that the ‘what’s wrong with John Wedgwood,’ was attempting humour, but just for the record the pottery maker was Josiah Wedgwood - but you are forgiven for attempting to lighten the overall tone!
So, if you just intended humour why the remark about a certain dictator’s views -surely it must have been obvious that was not going to come across as humorous?
I, of course disagree with your view of my opinion. What l cannot get past is your wishing that a person had never been born is a semantic device for wanting them not to exist or never to have existed - i.e ‘Dead’.
Your proposition is that you set yourself up as an arbiter of who is good and who is bad - those that should exist and those that should not and, of course, you are entitled to your opinions. The fact l find it distasteful does not mean that my mind is not open it simply means that l don’t agree with such pointless,hateful and subjective list making. It achieves nothing save promoting your own narrative and, gives you the opportunity to have a good old literary rough and tumble with others - something l’m sure you relish.
Your logic that every subject is worthy of discussion on this site is misplaced and naive. In your world l should be able to post a list of all the people l would like to have sex with and those that l definitely wouldn’t and invite others to add their own views. Or discuss in graphic terms the appeal of Sado Masochism and debate which dildos are best suited for either vaginal or anal sex.
Or we could debate which method of execution is the most humane or the most tortuous.
Surely somethings are distasteful and best left undiscussed on a public forum - however l’m sure there are plenty of other sites out there that such debate is welcome.
To say that these subjects are not worthy of debate on SF does not make my views dangerous it just means they are not as liberally advanced as yours Norman.
And Yes, you should have left out the aside about abortion - You must know how polarising and painful that subject is - Pro Choice or Pro Life debates tend to end badly - with views remaining entrenched but leaving quite a bit of emotional debris in their wake.
I assumed you meant John Redwood so yes it was my attempt at humour i could have quite easily gone down the grab your lamp and pitchfork route but life is to short. John Wedgwood was Josiah’s eldest son and partner in the family pottery business.
“He made a very good case for birth control or even abortion”
No - he (Hitler) didn’t. That would imply he provided well thought out and comprehensive arguments in favour of birth control . As far as I know this wasn’t one of Hitler’s pet subjects.
You are trying to say Hitler should have been aborted. That is quite different.
For two, as many people have rightly pointed out, the subject is so far off the scale of what most people consider palatable, that it is inappropriate.
And for three, don’t even get me started on ‘even’ abortion. The only people who need to comment on the issue of abortion are those who have had them / needed to have them / might want to have them.
Anyone else can keep their sanctimonious clap trap to themselves thank you very much. There are plenty of places where you can discuss your feelings on abortion if you want to, Survive France is not one of them .
I don’t recall the detail I just remember that Hitler’s “replacement” was even worse.
Stephen King’s novel 11:22:63 was a similar concept with a time traveler trying to prevent the assassination of Kennedy. Excellent book, less excellent TV series.
Yes, re-reading the comment I think I parsed it incorrectly - but Hitler and the Nazi party did have an interest in eugenics - Nazi eugenics - Wikipedia
re-read the opening stanza - NO I did not intend it to be humorous, but I did hope it would be thought-provoking.
Reply to Dan, NO again -where did I set myself up as arbiter of right and wrong? I made very clear that this was an OPINION - my opinion. Something I am as much entitled to as you are and every other person on this planet as far as I am concerned.
You find it distasteful, as do I with the killing of animals for food, cruelty to children and the underprivileged and handicapped so should we stop discussing these things? I am against censorship even if it is as you say against things I find distasteful. However once agin you are gonflating your views by trying to include things not mentioned in my posting.
Surely there is a case to be made that if a person never was, then they cannot die?
However are you saying that Survive France a place where we should only discuss gentler things? That is for the site owners to decide not me. I am sure if they find that my apparently contentious views are unacceptable they will ban or block me- again which is their right.
It was your later comment about “injecting humour”.
I admit that I misread your comment about Hitler, but it was ambiguously phrased and the Nazis certainly did have an interest in eugenics, so pretty easy to take it that you thought it was something to be supported.
Not necessarily but there are certain subjects that need to be dealt with very carefully, lest one be misunderstood. i think that this is one of them. Or rather I think your inclusion of the Hitler comment and the bit about abortion made it look like you wanted to talk about eugenics rather than a “what if” mental exercise.
I think I did you a disservice in my reaction - for which, as I have said, I apologise.
But “what if” these people had not existed? - as we’ve said above it is likely the broad sweep of history would have been the same.
i could have quite easily gone down the grab your lamp and pitchfork route but life is to short. John Wedgwood was Josiah’s eldest son and partner in the family pottery business.
:). )