I now work for a bank so I'm off today. Other Columbus Days I could ignore the fact. When I was a believer I was incensed that I didn't get today off.

So now decades later I have it off and I've read all about Columbus, the conquest of the New World and I know most of the shadowy things in Mormon History.

I can't help thinking be careful what you wish for. Back when I thought Columbus was old Testament prophet level I wasn't happy in Mormonism. After my mission I discovered Eastern and Western philosophy and thought Mormonism paled in comparison to those thoughts. But God you know so it was still truer somehow.

Now I sit in my living room having surveyed a world of history and thinking this is something apropos like completing a circle instead of trying to square one. I have a free day because of bad history and I'm free from Mormonism because of bad history. Finding out Smith was a sexual predator having been the victim of one made keeping Mormonism as some kind of truth impossible.

So I'm free today. Feels weird.

Chris, like all of us, thought what he was doing was good and right. "For God and country", right? The colonization of America happened in large part because of him, and almost all of us ended up here because of colonization. People want to remember people who've had a large effect on their lives. There's no need to dishonor Columbus or eschew the day people remember him.

Maybe but his words and actions were contradictory. And he had no country. He was employed by royalty.

I meant the idiom as an illustration. The point is there was probably a sense of loyalty involved. Whether that loyalty was to a "god" or a native nation or a financer is kind of irrelevant. Actually, I'd argue that loyalty to a financer is the most reasonable of those three possibilities.

How were his words and actions contradictory?



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 10/10/2022 08:55PM by skp.

skp Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How were his words and actions contradictory?


Seriously? Ok.

"All the same, Columbus' concern for the salvation of these people was coupled with an attitude of superiority, which saw nothing wrong in forcibly capturing the people and making them slaves of the Europeans."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.christianity.com/church/church-history/should-christians-honor-the-legacy-of-columbus.html%3famp=1

This is actually a sympathizing with him site.

Oy... Let's please leave the smart alecky quips at the door. I didn't say his words and actions weren't contradictory, I asked how they were. I was giving you room to make a specific observation to support your general judgement, so that I could understand your perspective and get on the same page. It's much easier to have a conversation that way.

Back on point, those are conflicting beliefs, not contradictory words and actions. And those beliefs were far more common than not at that time in history, especially among governors. Power corrupts, as they say, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The whole human race still had (and really still has) a lot to learn about shared humanity and abuse of power. People in this forum should understand the power that social indoctrination can have to make people do things they wouldn't otherwise do.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/11/2022 05:20PM by skp.

Seriously? Back on point? Me giving you replies to be a Columbus apologist?

He said he was a Christian. Those were his words.

https://duoparadigms.com/2013/10/14/rare-collection-quotes-christopher-columbus-christian-statesman/

And yet he writes a friend about raping a woman.
https://ibw21.org/editors-choice/5-scary-christopher-columbus-quotes-celebrate-the-holiday-the-right-way/

He didn't write about raping anyone, and there's no evidence that he ever did rape anyone. Your link doesn't even say that he did, although it's so poorly written that it's easy to confuse.

Besides, you can be a Christian and still rape someone. That's practically the Catholics' business model.

Either way, that doesn't really work as an example of a contradiction between what he said and what he did.

Take another swing?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/13/2022 02:31PM by skp.

Must be my Mormon upbringing that makes me think it's a contradiction. You know that judgment thing I've got going.

Perhaps.

Or maybe you're just conflating 21st-century American Christianity with 15th-century European Christianity.

Big deal. I'll apologize for not understanding the next 15th Century person I run into.

Columbus was responsible for the deaths of how many people ?
He was a genuine scum bag.
Stop using the "Mussolini made the trains run on time" argument.

You can't go way down the chain reaction and claim the guy that did A (with no malintent) is responsible for someone else doing Z.

Or maybe you are referring to smallpox (or whatever the disease was.. not sure if I'm remembering that right). In which case it's even more ignorant to call him scum bag for something he not only didn't intend but also had no way of knowing would happen.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 10/10/2022 09:29PM by skp.

"God wanted all those injuns dead".
- Brigham Young

If BY had a motto, it must've been, "God wants us to kill people."

I'm not sure Columbus cared whether what he was doing was right but, as his later life shows, he certainly hoped it would be very lucrative and boost his standing.

Lief Erickson: Columbus who?

After reading what the Aztecs were up to you start to think they probably deserved Cortez and the Spanish.

Columbus: Lief who?

From my reading of history, he basically saw the Taino as worthy of exploitation -- so probably not much different from any man of substance of his time. It was a shame because the Taino had a lot going for them. Their culture was pretty much crushed. No full-blooded Taino survive.


"The encounter" as it is often called was bound to happen, and probably somewhere around that timeframe. So the enormous toll on the natives due to smallpox and other diseases was probably unavoidable. The mindset of exploitation, however, lives on to this day, if somewhat more disguised.

> "The encounter" as it is often called was bound to
> happen, and probably somewhere around that
> timeframe. So the enormous toll on the natives due
> to smallpox and other diseases was probably
> unavoidable.

That's a very good point. In fact, the eponymous Amerigo Vespucci and his Italian crews arrived in the New World just years after Columbus.


------------------
> The mindset of exploitation, however,
> lives on to this day, if somewhat more disguised.

That's a good point as well. But for the reasons you adduce above, the fact is that a Portuguese or Dutch captain would probably have been as predisposed to exploitation as Columbus proved.


---------------
Yet if Columbus has for centuries been hailed as a hero for what he and his followers achieved, surely he can with equal justification serve as a a representative of the evil they perpetrated.

I try to hold out what often seems to be a vain hope that we can do better than that.

I try to hold out the hope that we can stop hailing him and other historical figures as heroes, but also not condemn them as villains.

I hope that we can begin to see them as humans, just like us, and their actions as their best efforts to meet their own human needs, just like our own actions are our best efforts to meet our own needs.

I hope that we can appreciate and be glad of the things they did that benefitted themselves and others, and we can mourn and be aggrieved for the things they did that caused harm to themselves and others.

And I hope we can do all of that without an ounce of inclination to moralistically judge them or their actions as "good" or "evil", "right" or "wrong". Those moralistic judgements don't help anyone or any situation. They just contribute to conflict and hostility.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/12/2022 06:06PM by skp.

I agree with your statement that it would be good to get to the point where we don't consider people heroes or villains but rather objectively evaluate what they did. That is what every historian aspires to do.

I do not, however, concur that we should refrain from pronouncing people's actions as "good" or "evil." Hitler was evil; Stalin was evil; Pol Pot was evil. If objective analysis leads to the conclusion that a leader decided to eliminate an entire ethnicity or class, it would be historically inaccurate to refrain from pronouncing them evil.

The fact is that Hitler had a human "need" to destroy, as did Stalin. So too, on a lesser level, did Charlie Manson and Ted Bundy. There are human needs that stem, particularly but not exclusively, from psychological illness that are nonetheless evil. The actions arising from those needs are often evil as well.

Dispassionate, neutral analysis is admirable but loses its value if it does not result in objective judgment. True history must offer moral conclusions in at least the extreme cases.

That's an understandable position to take. Thing is, there is no such thing as objective judgement. The phrase itself is a contradiction of terms. Judgement is by definition subjective, and true objectivity by definition precludes judgement. There is nothing that is objectively good or objectively evil.

Besides, when you pronounce some "good" and some "evil", really you're right back to heroes and villains.

I'm going to stop there because I tend to really get going on this topic and I'm sure you don't want to read a novel about it.

If you're interested in thinking more about this though, I'll post a link (in a subsequent comment) to a podcast series that really helped me peel away the layers of indoctrination society has heaped on us about this. It was also pivotal to me seeing Mormonism for what it is.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/12/2022 07:01PM by skp.

The podcast:

https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9hbmNob3IuZm0vcy8xMzczYjQ0Yy9wb2RjYXN0L3Jzcw?ep=14

To argue that Pol Pot's murder of two million people simply because they had had contact with foreigners is morally neutral is absurd.

To say that Hitler's attempt to wipe out all Jews--and his success with regard to six million of them--was just his "best efforts to meet [his] own human needs" and hence was morally neutral is ridiculous.

To contend that Stalin's murder of tens of millions of kulaks because they had achieved lower middle class status was neither good nor bad is silly.

To allege that the dispossession and slaughter of millions of Native Americans was morally indistinguishable from a policy of respecting them as humans is indefensible.

To refrain from judging slavery immoral is unsustainable.

History is full of instances in which modern minds apply an inappropriate standard of judgment to individuals and groups. But that does not mean that no judgment is ever merited. To the contrary, it is entirely reasonable to apply the standards of the day to atrocities and conclude that they were atrocities.

To do otherwise is not objective: it is nihilistic.

So I take it from your repetitious and rather extreme moralistic judging of me as "absurd... ridiculous... silly... indefensible... immoral... unsustainable... [and] nihilistic," that you've changed your position on only judging extreme cases like those you've mentioned?

This is exactly what I'm talking about. The argument in favor comes down to, "Judgement because judgement."

I hope you'll try the podcast. You might learn something.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/12/2022 07:37PM by skp.

skp Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So I take it from your repetitious and rather
> extreme moralistic judging of me as "absurd...
> ridiculous... silly... indefensible... immoral...
> unsustainable... nihilistic," that you've changed
> your position on only judging extreme cases like
> those you've mentioned?

If you go back and read what I wrote more carefully, you may discover that what I was judging was not you but your statements. I stand by everything I said.


---------------
> This is exactly what I'm talking about. The
> argument in favor comes down to, "Judgement
> because judgement."

I never said "judgment" was wrong. I said we must be careful about how we exercise it. It is entirely appropriate to judge people by their own standards and by the standards of their societies and times.

The question you need to ask is whether you think those leaders' behavior was morally neutral. I posed that question and you have dodged it. Do you believe that what Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot did was the moral equivalent of their victims'?


---------------
> I hope you'll try the podcast. You might learn
> something.

Oh, I know Rosenberg's work. What you are missing is that he worked within the context of an agreed framework. He negotiated deals between parties who shared a set of principles and a desire to reach a settlement.

As he acknowledged, that approach doesn't work when there is no shared framework. There was no "deal" to be reached between Jews and Hitler. Morally neutral language cannot change that.

-------------
"If you go back and read what I wrote more carefully, you may discover that what I was judging was not you but your statements. I stand by everything I said."
-------------

This "love the sinner, hate the sin" attitude is much more at home on Mormon forums than ex-Mormon ones. When you moralistically judge what someone says, you are by immediate and obvious extension judging them. Which was the whole point of your rhetoric.

-------------
"I never said "judgment" was wrong. I said we must be careful about how we exercise it."
-------------

I pause here to clarify another distinction you seem to be having trouble with... not all judgements are moralistic judgements. You can usually tell the difference by the use of demeaning (or aggrandizing) labels. Those labels always indicate moralistic judgement, and their absence usually indicates absence of moralistic judgement.

So no, not all judgement is problematic. After all, it's by our judgement that we make decisions. It's moralistic judgements that are a problem.

-------------
"I posed that question and you have dodged it."
-------------

You didn't pose any questions at all until immediately after making this false claim.

-------------
"Do you believe that what Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot did was[sic] the moral equivalent of their victims'?"
-------------

I can't make any sense of this question. If you're asking if I like what those men did, the answer is no. If you're asking me to make moralistic judgements of their actions, the answer is still, no. I don't believe in doing that. It's a fool's errand.

-------------
"Oh, I know Rosenberg's work."
-------------

Clearly you don't. And the problem for you is I actually do. Rosenberg did not limit his ideas to negotiation, mediation and conflict resolution. What he taught was a mindset. A way of seeing ourselves and those around us with more clarity and understanding. Which understanding is exactly what he advocated in the place of moralistic judgement.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/13/2022 05:00PM by skp.

Why do you want to do this again? I'm perfectly willing to resurrect your mistakes from the subthread that was deleted because you violated board rules, but doesn't self-flagellation achieve the same purpose without the public embarrassment?

Anyway. . .


----------------
> This "love the sinner, hate the sin" attitude is
> much more at home on Mormon forums than ex-Mormon
> ones.

Quite the contrary. Judging the evils the church has committed, and continues to commit, is the very purpose of RfM. It is only by condemning the immoral that we can help disillusioned Mormons move on.


---------------
> When you moralistically judge what someone
> says, you are by immediate and obvious extension
> judging them.

Untrue. When a first-grade teacher puts a red mark on a child's arithmetic quiz, the teacher is not "judging" the student. She is judging the error as part of the educational process.

Also significant is the fact that everyone alive, including you, judges every single day. Are you neutral between reputable banks and the bookie down the street? Do you lock your car doors when you drive through a dangerous part of town?

What you suggest is not even logically possible. When criticizing EB or me for our moral judgments, is that not itself a moral judgment?


--------------------
> Which was the whole point of your
> rhetoric.

Alas, you have failed to grasp my point. As I explained in the deleted conversation my point was that where a person is acting as anyone else in his temporal cultural context would have done, moral judgments tend to be arbitrary and may best be avoided. That may well cover Columbus.

But surely you recall the questions I posed for you in the deleted posts. You had difficulty with them, so I'll ask again.

1) Wasn't Hitler's genocide evil?

2) Wasn't Stalin's murder of tens of millions of kulaks for the simple reason that they had achieved lower middle class status evil?

3) Wasn't it evil of Pol Pot to murder 20% of the Kampuchean population just because they had had contact with foreigners?

4) Wasn't what Charlie Manson did evil?

If you truly believe moral judgment is always inappropriate, your answers to all of those questions must logically be no. Do you dare answer them or are you going to ignore them like last time?


----------------
> So no, not all judgement is problematic. After
> all, it's by our judgement that we make decisions.
> It's moralistic judgements that are a problem.

And that, sd, is why you are having such a hard time untying the knots into which you have tied yourself. For you have changed your position from denouncing all judgment--your initial position--to the narrower subcategory of "moral judgment."

Yet even here you contradict yourself. When you refuse to buy produce from the huckster who looks like a street person, when you won't let your six-year-old daughter play with the registered sex offender, you are ineluctably making a moral judgment about those people.

What you describe as morally neutral quotidian judgments are in fact nothing of the sort. You judge the moral content of others all the time.


---------------
> "Do you believe that what Hitler, Stalin, and Pol
> Pot did was the moral equivalent of their
> victims'?"
> -------------
>
> I can't make any sense of this question.

Then I'll bet you really hate the quadratic equation. [Inside joke]

It's simple. You claim that moral judgment is always wrong, in which case you cannot adjudge what Hitler did (genocide) as morally worse that what the Jews did (dying).


------------------
> If you're asking me to make moralistic
> judgements of their actions, the answer is still,
> no. I don't believe in doing that. It's a fool's
> errand.

If your beliefs prevent you from making moral judgments about atrocities, you're not an honorable person. You cannot condemn mass murder, you cannot condemn Bernie Madoff, you cannot try to defeat those who steal your car or assault your daughter. You cannot fight to help the victims of aggression. And you cannot empathize with the victim of a cult.

There is nothing virtuous in your purported (we've already seen that you don't practice what you preach in your personal life) moral principles.


------------------
> Clearly you don't [understand Rosenthal]. And the problem for
> you is I actually do.

Really? I think the truth is obvious from this thread.


----------------
> Rosenberg did not limit his ideas to
> negotiation, mediation and conflict resolution.
> What he taught was a mindset. A way of seeing
> ourselves and those around us with more clarity
> and understanding. Which understanding is exactly
> what he advocated in the place of moralistic
> judgement.

Yawn.

I asked if you could cite Rosenberg applying his principles to the major events of history as opposed to contemporary negotiations. You said you could quote him in your sleep. I replied that a few quotations while you were awake would suffice. But you never provided any evidence at all. Why's that?

Amusingly, it was also at this point in the conversation that you retreated, saying that "as a Jew" Rosenberg disapproved of Hitler's genocide. Can you explain how that was not exactly the sort of moral historical judgment I espouse?


----------------
It's easy, sd. All I asked is that while you are not crossing the street to avoid that crack dealer you provide us with proof that Rosenberg disapproved of moral judgment of historical atrocities. You may need to provide a couple instances on the Holocaust because there you've already told us that Rosenberg does indeed morally judge Hitler and his minions.

It should only take a couple of minutes for you to provide examples on the Holocaust, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, etc. After all, you have already assured us you can quote Rosenberg in your sleep.

TL;DR.

I don't care anymore. Arguing with you is like arguing with a 12 year old who'll say anything avoid admitting they don't know everything. I'm tired of you.

If anyone else has read all of this (and I doubt anyone other than EB has) and wants to know the truth about whether any of your childish punches land, all they have to do is listen to that podcast series.

As for you, lw, I could give a fig what you do or what you believe. Go ahead and convince yourself you "won" if it protects your ego. I'm going to turn my attention from this pissing match of yours to something more productive... like maybe watering my lawn in a monsoon.

skp Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't care anymore. Arguing with you is like
> arguing with a 12 year old who'll say anything
> avoid admitting they don't know everything. I'm
> tired of you.

Hmm. In now-deleted posts you already told EB you were done talking to him and you said the same to me. Yet you came back to both of us today.

Do you mean it this time?


----------------
> If anyone else has read all of this (and I doubt
> anyone other than EB has) and wants to know the
> truth about whether any of your childish punches
> land, all they have to do is listen to that
> podcast series.

Or the reader can peruse our exchanges and decide for herself whether you know what you are talking about. I mean, you twice asked me to restate my questions and you have now thrice refused to answer them. Why is that? Do they make you uncomfortable?

And why after promising to provide citations to Rosenberg applying non-judgmentalism to Stalin and Pol Pot and Hitler have you offered nothing? You assured us that you "can quote him in [your] sleep" and yet you haven't offered a single example (except the one about Hitler that contradicted your claims).

Are we to conclude that you don't know Rosenberg very well after all or that you have misrepresented him?


-----------------
> As for you, lw, I could give a fig what you do or
> what you believe. Go ahead and convince yourself
> you "won" if it protects your ego. I'm going to
> turn my attention from this pissing match of yours
> to something more productive... like maybe
> watering my lawn in a monsoon.

I'm like "a 12 year old;" my arguments are "childish punches;" I'm engaged in a "pissing match." That sounds like the petulance of a man who's been called on his bullshit and doesn't have an answer.

It also sounds quite judgmental.

It occurred to me that it shouldn't be hard to point out Skippy's moral inconsistency because as a practical matter judging is as natural to humans as breathing.

Don't get me wrong, there's plenty of evidence of his issuing moral judgments of others--including, predictably but ironically, judging them for being judgmental--in this thread alone. But for a guy who's only been here for a couple of weeks, he's amassed quite the record of moral denunciations. I'll link to some examples below.

In the meantime, the contrast between his pretensions and reality is conspicuous. One wonders whether he is aware of that or if it is beyond his powers of personal insight.

Unfortunate either way.


https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2448288,2448288#msg-2448288

https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2446987,2447156#msg-2447156

https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2448891,2448945#msg-2448945

https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2448342,2448657#msg-2448657

https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2447166,2447166#msg-2447166

https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2446342,2446925#msg-2446925



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/14/2022 04:07AM by Lot's Wife.

Skp wrote in part:

"Clearly you don't. And the problem for you is I actually do. Rosenberg did not limit his ideas to negotiation, mediation and conflict resolution. What he taught was a mindset. A way of seeing ourselves and those around us with more clarity and understanding. Which understanding is exactly what he advocated in the place of moralistic judgement."

When I was younger, I used to see things this way: that only one person might have the proper philosophy for a clear vision of life. Some would argue that Jesus Christ did that; many on this Board would argue that Joseph Smith did that prior to their exodus from Mormonism; many blind people (I am one) would argue that the late Jacobus tenBroek and Kenneth Jernigan did that for blind people. However, what I've realized as I've gotten older and wiser is that no one person has the absolute correct philosophy for living life, and that includes myself. So I am very wary when you talk about the clarity that Rosenberg's philosophy has brought to you--it makes me want to run away and watch from afar.

We humans do need to moralistically judge, particularly, as LW has indicated, when members of the human family have ritually killed other human beings because they don't look like them or any number of reasons. If we don't or can't do that, then we are setting ourselves up for our own personal destruction when someone who doesn't like us decides in his/her great wisdom to execute us for who we are.

I have some input for you on that, but the people in this thread are intent on hostility and harassment, so I'm not willing to talk here. If you'd like to discuss, let's create a separate OP/"New Topic". Let me know if you'd like to discuss and I'll create the post.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/14/2022 01:30PM by skp.

Take it out email. You can't ban me from posting to a thread no matter what kind of control you think you have.

I'm aware of the limitation of the platform. I didn't plan on trying to ban you. I planned on asking you not to participate.

If you don't like what he said, sue him for "One Beelion Dollars".

not familiar with the reference... what's that from?

How about 100?

https://youtu.be/EJR1H5tf5wE

skp Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm aware of the limitation of the platform. I
> didn't plan on trying to ban you. I planned on
> asking you not to participate.

And below, again to EB,

> God, just go away. I'm so sick of you following me
> around trying to gaslight me. Get a life.

You have promised three times to leave EB's thread but not only do you lack the self-control to do what you say, you've taken the next step and are now telling us to go away. That's not how it works.

Why don't you take a break, as you promised, and go read some Rosenberg? It is at this point clear that you have only listened to a podcast and have not perused any of his books; for although you said you could easily document what you say, when pressed, you just get angry and judgmental.

Your defensiveness speaks volumes.

Also, please show us an example of when Rosenberg applied his moral neutrality to historical events.

You won't find any. Why? Because he was negotiating, and explaining how to negotiate, current disputes. He did not apply his approach to past events.

Doing what you do--claiming that all historical events are morally neutral--has no retroactive benefit. Claiming now that Jews like him were the moral equivalent of Hitler would do nothing to reduce the scale of Hitler's atrocities 80 years ago.

Your podcast is irrelevant to the study of history.

You really need to stop trying to tell me about things I know and you clearly don't.

Rosenberg did, explicitly and on the record, apply his judgement-free values to many historical events, including US weapons deals, middle eastern violence, and yes, even WWII and Hitler. That really shouldn't be a surprise since on an individual scale, he also applied it to murderers and child molesters.

I think where you're misunderstanding is he did not promote "moral neutrality", as you call it. He advocated a complete abandonment of moral judgement, period. He advocated the understanding that the "morality" of a thing is subjective and irrelevant, and thinking in moralistic terms only contributes to problems.

All moral judgement really is when you boil it down, is the use of labels to shame one person for doing something another person doesn't like. And shame is always counterproductive for everyone involved, including those who only witness the shame.

Of course, we don't have to like everything another person does (Rosenberg being a Jew certainly didn't LIKE what Hitler did), and we can certainly ask that others act in a way that meets our needs too.

Ugh, I'm getting all bogged down trying to explain this. If you want to really understand what Rosenberg was trying to teach, listening to that whole podcast series would be a good place to start. If you're not interested in learning more about it, then I don't see much point in continuing. You do you.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/12/2022 10:13PM by skp.

Note the contradiction:

> Rosenberg did, explicitly and on the record, apply
> his judgement-free values to many historical
> events, including US weapons deals, middle eastern
> violence, and yes, even WWII and Hitler.

Versus

> . . . Rosenberg being a Jew certainly didn't LIKE what Hitler did . . .


You see, this is where your analysis looks revealingly threadbare. Rosenberg doesn't judge Hitler but he judges Hitler. Just as you refrain from moral judgment of others even as you pronounce moral judgment upon others both in this thread and in numerous other posts.

The truth is Rosenberg is vastly more consistent than you and he differentiates between negotiations between people who share a common moral framework on the one hand and those, on the other, who are outside of virtually any framework, as you have so kindly albeit inadvertently have just pointed out.

Hypocrisy exists in all of us. It is the nature of our attempts to domesticate the beast. But nihilists are a special kind of hypocrite. Nietzsche tried to warn us about them.

As did, simultaneously, Dostoevsky in Notes from Underground, that masterful treatment of the bitter little man whose internal contradictions render him incapable of anything beyond passive aggression.

To address this:

"Doing what you do--claiming that all historical events are morally neutral--has no retroactive benefit. Claiming now that Jews like him were the moral equivalent of Hitler would do nothing to reduce the scale of Hitler's atrocities 80 years ago. Your podcast is irrelevant to the study of history."

Are you claiming that by moralistically judging Hitler you're changing what he did? Or that moralistic judgements have some retroactive benefit?

Abandoning moralistic judgements may not have a retroactive benefit, but it has massive moving-forward benefits. Especially comparatively.

And please don't put words in my mouth. I did not say that I think Jews are the moral equivalent of Hitler. I said, and am saying, that there is no point judging the morality of either.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/12/2022 10:24PM by skp.

skp Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Are you claiming that by moralistically judging
> Hitler you're changing what he did? Or that
> moralistic judgements have some retroactive
> benefit?

No, I am not. What I am saying is that learning how to judge with moral clarity has prospective value. People who, like you, equivocate over basic moral facts make little contribution to humanity.


------------------
> Abandoning moralistic judgements may not have a
> retroactive benefit, but it has massive
> moving-forward benefits. Especially
> comparatively.

Only in the context of a common moral framework. If both parties share a commitment to the political, social, or moral structure, then non-judgmentalism can provide benefits, as Rosenberg argued. But when the parties do not share a common set of values, the result is Neville Chamberlain's "peace in our time."


------------
> And please don't put words in my mouth. I did not
> say that I think Jews are the moral equivalent of
> Hitler.

Again, I'll try to use simple words. If you refuse to assign moral value to Hitler or to the Jews, you are by definition asserting equivalence.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/12/2022 11:23PM by Lot's Wife.

Lol.

Here is what skp first said to me in this thread.

"Chris, like all of us, thought what he was doing was good and right."

Coming from someone who refuses to assign moral value.

That's called perspective-taking. Try it sometime.

Nope. It's called channeling dead people if you are not making moral judgments. Good luck with that. It's deceptive on a forum where people make judgement as a matter of course.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/13/2022 03:14PM by Elder Berry.

God, just go away. I'm so sick of you following me around trying to gaslight me. Get a life.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/13/2022 03:36PM by skp.

Lol. Go away from my own thread? And following you around? Me thinks you think you're important enough to protest too much.

But at least you are making progress not cursing me out.

I love the gaslighting accusation. It is such an easy one for people for with whom you disagree.

You picked a fight with me in another thread on this post. You made an issue of the fact that I wasn't on-topic because your post was about your feelings. Now you've read a conversation I was having with someone else on that same post, a conversation also not about your feelings, and you just had to jump in and make another snide remark.

If you aren't here specifically to harass me, then why did you comment in this conversation? I'll wait.

Stop trying to gaslight me. It's not working.

I have no idea what you are talking about. But let's make this about you cause you are so persistent.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/13/2022 05:06PM by Elder Berry.

It's all nonsense.

Skippy hasn't even read Rosenberg. He's just another Youtube scholar whose ego is several sizes larger than his knowledge base. Hence the petulance.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/14/2022 05:29PM by Lot's Wife.

I couldn't square the fact that I was abused over "self-abuse" for years and suffered in horrible subjective social isolation over it for years but Smith not only gets to satisfy himself whenever he wants but furthermore and to my horror use the authority of his office to press innocents into servicing him thinking its God's will. I cannot wrap my brain around the fact that this is history, but I am considered the fallen one and punished for my trying to tell people who Smith was. I figured it out on my mission, although back then I was powerless to know what to do about it. My opinion on William Law's integrity completely shifted. Now there was a guy who went down trying to tell the truth and stand for what's right, and that's what I try to do.

Nowadays I just like to be left alone and indulge my intellectual curiosities as much as I like. I think that but for some drama with the Spanish crown that occurred around the third or fourth voyage, America would have been called Columbia. Columbus fell from royal grace, and subsequently the New World's name went to one Amerigo Vespucci who was an accomplished Venetian explorer we know too little about considering we named two continents and the most powerful economic and militant country on earth after him.

It doesn't hurt to celebrate a day off. "Indigenous People's Day" is some corny bull**** that will never roll off the tongue like Columbus Day did, but the idea contained in it is much nobler.

> . . . the New World's name went to one Amerigo Vespucci
> who was an accomplished Venetian explorer we know
> too little about . . .

Actually, "we" know a lot about Vespucci. (See immediately above.) You're just catching up.


--------------
> . . . considering we named two
> continents and the most powerful economic and
> militant country on earth after him.

No, "we" did not name "the most powerful economic and militant [sic] country in the world after" Vespucci. The United States was a marginal economic and military power when it came into existence and it was named after the territory on which it happened to exist. That's why he scarcely appears in text books and "we" don't know much about him.






Note to Zippy et al: "Textbo*ks" is a banned word???



Edited 9 time(s). Last edit at 10/12/2022 02:55AM by Lot's Wife.

A few questions about your post, C-D:

1. What part of "Indigenous People's Day" is bullshit? Is it the concept of holidays? The existence of Indigenous peoples? Or is it a case of "It's not real because I don't like it?" If it's the last one, do I have to worry about being wished into the cornfield?

2. Did you do some research into *why* Columbus fell from royal grace? Because from what I can tell, his actions were so horrible the monarchs who started the Spanish Inquisition thought Columbus went too far.

3. Why the fuck did you censor "bullshit?"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/12/2022 04:01PM by ookami.

After your Andy Defresne-like crawl to freedom from Mormonism, there are plenty of other features of our world to work through. Columbus has a holiday. Lincoln has a holiday. So, why not Jack the Ripper and Jeffrey Dahmer? Why don't we have national holidays for them? Social status.

If you are Dwight D Eisenhower they make you President. If you are Adolph Eichmann they hang you. That's the breaks of history. It's good when you kill the right people, but bad when you kill the wrong people. Just don't be born in the wrong place and you'll be okay. Too bad you weren't valiant in the pre-existence. Now you're gonna die.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 10/13/2022 11:42PM by bradley.

List of the peccadillos of Columbus.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/2014/10/13/6957875/christopher-columbus-murderer-tyrant-scoundrel

Doing Christ's work is some dirty work.