Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Some Background Facts:

Jews in Germany had the right to vote before Hitler came to power. The Weimar Republic, which existed from 1919 to 1933, was a democratic state where Jews, like other citizens, had voting rights and were able to participate in the electoral process. Many of the Jews who were killed in the Holocaust were German citizens.


With those facts in mind, among any others, do you believe the killing of German Jews during the Holocaust was consensual?

In other words, was it (1) murder or was it merely (2) consensual, assisted suicide?


For those who agree with me that taxation is theft and, more specifically, that taxation is violent robbery, this new question about the Holocaust has an infinitely easy obvious answer. For those like me who agree that taxation is obviously not consensual, then it is clear that likewise the killing of Jews during the holocaust was also likewise obviously not consensual. To us, it is clear that even though the killing of the Jews was legal it was still not consensual and was thus still murder rather than merely consensual assisted suicide.

However, those people who somehow believe that taxation is somehow consensual presumably thus also must believe that the German Jews killed in the Holocaust somehow consented to being killed, meaning the killing wasn't non-consensual murder but rather consensual assisted suicide.




With love,
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
a.k.a. Scott

MLK-never-forget.jpg (86.38 KiB) Viewed 1429 times

[Sushan]

The Holocaust was a genocide, a systematic murder of six million Jews and millions of others by the Nazis. To imply that the victims consented to their own murder is not only deeply offensive but also a gross distortion of history. The Holocaust was an atrocity, not an "assisted suicide."

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

The Holocaust was a genocide, a systematic murder of six million Jews and millions of others by the Nazis. To imply that the victims consented to their own murder is not only deeply offensive but also a gross distortion of history. The Holocaust was an atrocity, not an "assisted suicide."

I agree 100%.

[Surabhi Rani]

The Jews in Germany belonged to a democratic state. They had the right to vote. This background fact indicates their freedom of thought and expression. The killing of the German Jews during the Holocaust was not consensual. It was murder.

[Lagayscienza]

The killing of the Jews was not consensual. The German jews had the right to vote like other German citizens and they voted for whomever they voted for. However, their votes cannot be construed as consent to being murdered any more than other Germans who voted consented to being murdered to be murdered. It was a vote for who they wanted to be in government not for being murdered. And I don't think we can equate taxation with mass murder. They are entirely different issues and the reasons behind taxation and mass murder are totally different.

[LuckyR]

Again, don't confuse action and outcome. They are not identical. The ACTION of exercising the right to vote does not equate to any potential OUTCOME associated with that vote.

If you consent to the action of surgery, you agree you have been warned about negative surgical complications including the outcome of death, BUT that's NOT equivalent to consenting to being killed.

[Lagayscienza]

I think that's right. Voting for a government is not consent to a governemnt doing anything it likes. If in a referendum the German people had been asked to vote on the question of whether they consented to being murdered, then I think we know what the answer would be. At the election which led Hindenberg to appoint the NAZIs to power, the question of whether the people consented to being murdered en mass was not asked of them. There was no consent explicit or implicit.

[Pattern-chaser]

[...]

In some countries, even to ask the question that is the title of this topic, is illegal. [Such laws were passed to prevent Holocaust Deniers from spreading their poison.]

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

The Jews in Germany belonged to a democratic state. They had the right to vote. [...] The killing of the German Jews during the Holocaust was not consensual. It was murder.

I agree 100%.

Thank you for your reply!

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

The killing of the Jews was not consensual. The German jews had the right to vote like other German citizens and they voted for whomever they voted for. However, their votes cannot be construed as consent

I agree.

Thank you for your reply!

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Again, don't confuse action and outcome. They are not identical. The ACTION of exercising the right to vote does not equate to any potential OUTCOME associated with that vote.

If you consent to the action of surgery, you agree you have been warned about negative surgical complications including the outcome of death, BUT that's NOT equivalent to consenting to being killed.

LuckyR, you didn't answer the question. Please answer the question:

Do you believe the killing of German Jews during the Holocaust was consensual?

martin-luther-king-never-forget.png (396.56 KiB) Viewed 1229 times

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

If in a referendum the German people had been asked to vote on the question of whether they consented to being murdered, then I think we know what the answer would be.

You merely think you know the answer? Surely, you can research it to become sure. Popular opinions in Germany during that time are no mystery.

The majority of German citizens would have voted to continue with the labor camps and killing of Jews, for the same reason they voted Hitler into power in the first place.

Hitler's administration and its doings were very popular in Nazi Germany, even moreso after his election. Nazi Germany is the epitome of democracy.

That is, of course, if we limit our examples only to real life. Otherwise, the epitome is two wolves and one sheep deciding what to have for dinner.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

In some countries, even to ask the question that is the title of this topic, is illegal.

How horribly and sadly ironic. I can only imagine living somewhere so authoritarian, tyrannical, and Nazi-like that one could be legally violently attacked by their government and violently thrown in a cage just for doing what we are doing here on these Philosophy Forums, especially someone like me who is one of if not the absolute most peaceful person on the entire forum. Me being a person who consistently advocates for peace, perhaps more firmly, clearly, and consistently than anyone else on these forums.

Of course, I would be far from the first peaceful person in the history of the world to be thrown in prison (or executed) by their government just for advocating for peace (e.g. criticizing the government for committing acts of non-defensive non-consensual violence).

However, this topic is not about the issue of free speech and of pacifists and other peace advocates being throw in prison or executed just for peacefully advocated for peace. So I instead invite you to discuss that other topic that you have brought up in these other threads intead:

Peace, love, and truth ultimately thrive under the light of open-mindedness, peaceful discussion

Orwellian Agent-Smithism | How Control Freaks, God Complexes, And Violent Nanny Statism Attack Freedom and Diversity


With love,
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes

[Pattern-chaser]

In some countries, even to ask the question that is the title of this topic, is illegal.

How horribly and sadly ironic. I can only imagine living somewhere so authoritarian, tyrannical, and Nazi-like that one could be legally violently attacked by their government and violently thrown in a cage just for doing what we are doing here on these Philosophy Forums, especially someone like me who is one of if not the absolute most peaceful person on the entire forum. Me being a person who consistently advocates for peace, perhaps more firmly, clearly, and consistently than anyone else on these forums.

Where there is strong consensus approval, say 95%, isn't it the duty of our elected government to pass and enforce such a law? That doesn't look like an imposition...?



Also, I think there are some questions that shouldn't be asked. Not because they are taboo, but because they have no purpose or use. For example:

Are all Americans pædophiles?

Should Libertarians be crucified or impaled?

I think such questions are insults, petty nastiness, disguised as something else? I'm not sure. But I really can't see why anyone would want to ask such questions as I have written above.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Hi, Pattern-chaser,

Thank you for your reply!

In some countries, even to ask the question that is the title of this topic, is illegal.

How horribly and sadly ironic. I can only imagine living somewhere so authoritarian, tyrannical, and Nazi-like that one could be legally violently attacked by their government and violently thrown in a cage just for doing what we are doing here on these Philosophy Forums, especially someone like me who is one of if not the absolute most peaceful person on the entire forum. Me being a person who consistently advocates for peace, perhaps more firmly, clearly, and consistently than anyone else on these forums.

isn't it the duty of our [...]

Also, I think there are some questions that shouldn't be asked.

[Color and emphasis added.]

I don't believe in 'duties' or 'shoulds'.

For more on that, please see:

Topics about the dangerous superstition of 'shoulds' and 'oughts' and other resentful, moralizing judgementalism


As for the topic of free speech, that can be discussed in the following forum topics:

Peace, love, and truth ultimately thrive under the light of open-mindedness, peaceful discussion

Orwellian Agent-Smithism | How Control Freaks, God Complexes, And Violent Nanny Statism Attack Freedom and Diversity


If you want to continue to post in this topic, please do make sure to say on topic. The topic of this topic is, "Was the killing of German Jews during the Holocaust consensual?"





With love,
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes