Moses bin Amram and Adolph Hilter

[Willum]

SallyF is hinting at similarities between Hitler and Jesus - honestly I don't see it, but I am ready to be surprised.

But it did make me see a relation between Moses and Hitler.

Both led their people from slavery.
Both were xenophobes.
Both attempted genocide, only one succeeded.
Both were artists.

Let's look at other similarities and differences.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 30 by Goose]

Great, Churchill and Trueman are or are not monsters.
I am the OP, and I don't care.

At least we agree that Moses was far worse than Hitler, and that is what the OP is named, right?

At lease we see posters so desperately try to obviate the fact by changing the subject.
At least we know that it is impossible to come to a different conclusion, and the only way to do this is to try to make people forget what the topic is about.

People venerating a viscous monster as a hero, who is in fact worse than its greatest modern villain.
I say modern, be cause decimation and diaspora has occurred many times, and with worse impacts.

So now that we know Moses is a far greater monster than Adolph, how does it effect our beliefs?
Do we continue to follow the monster and the god approving of such behaviour?
Do we look for a better religion or deity?
Do we continue to venerate an evil monster because it claims it is all-powerful?
Or do we just assume it is false and their might be a better god out there?
Or is no god at all better?

[Mithrae]

I didn't offer the latter as a definition of genocide, simply as a description of Moses' actions/commands. You then explicitly accepted it as an accurate description*, so trying to dismiss it as an absurdity now seems a little disingenuous. (*With a caveat about the number, though you offered no explanation as to how you'd get fewer than millions out of "seven nations greater and more numerous" than the Israelite horde of 600k men plus women and children.)

Doesn’t matter why you offered the second definition/description. It still implies the same absurdity. As for the numbers I didn’t digress on that point because they are irrelevant. It’s either genocide or it is not. Whether 8,000 were killed or 8,000,000 is irrelevant to that fact.

I'm pretty sure the main point of the thread is that whereas the monster Hitler slaughtered some six million Jews on religious/ethnic grounds, Moses commanded the Jews to slaughter an even greater number of Canaanites on religious/ethnic grounds. I can certainly see why you would like those numbers to lose their relevancy.

Please be honest enough to take responsibility for your own posts. You are the one who has asserted an equivalency between Moses and Churchill/Truman, while I argued the opposite; you are the one who has repeatedly claimed that Churchill/Truman's actions can fall under the UN definition of genocide, while I pointed out some important problems with that view.

• Goose wrote: It’s not at all irrelevant that [the UN] definition of genocide implies Truman and Churchill committed genocide.

Trying to pass this off as an 'implication' of my argument is extremely dishonest, and I really expected better of you.

But it is an implication of your argument. Nothing dishonest about my making that argument. Your attempted Special Plea to excuse Truman and Churchill has been met on every point you’ve made.

Moses' actions against the Midianites and commands against the nations of Canaan clearly and unequivocally fall under the UN definition of genocide; so clearly that you haven't even attempted to show otherwise. Pointing out this fact does not imply that Churchill or Cortez or Bob down the street committed genocide. Nor does pointing out that fact about Moses incur any onus to go through all the details of what Churchill, Cortez or Bob down the street did in order to ascertain their genocide status.

You have argued that Churchill and Truman committed genocide on the basis of the UN definition. Of course that's entirely irrelevant in any case unless you were arguing against that definition, but you could legitimately say you are arguing that "The UN definition implies Churchill committed genocide." Saying that use of that definition implies on my part various other accusations of genocide that I'd neither mentioned nor even considered would be imprecise initially... and after I explicitly contradicted and argued for the opposite conclusion (regardless of whether you want to accept my disagreement) it is, quite simply, a lie to say that my argument 'implies' the opposite of what I'd argued!

Haha, okay logically 'valid,'...

Why are you laughing and why are you putting valid in scare quotes? That argument is inescapably valid. If you think not, explain why not.

...but obviously not sound

Obviously not sound? You’ve conceded the argument is valid (or is that another “for the sake of argument� thing?). And you’ve explicitly affirmed the antecedent Case A.

You're "contraposing" and "Modus Ponensing" all over the place, but you don't know what the terms valid and sound mean? Your claim that it cannot be the case that Moses committed genocide unless Truman also committed genocide (2. Not case A unless case B) is obviously ridiculous - doesn't matter how 'valid' the logic is with nonsense premises like that.

Again, this is an apparently wilfully inaccurate depiction of my posts: I explicitly said at least two times that for the sake of argument I would grant your key premise of an equivalency between the genocide status of Moses and Churchill/Truman.

What makes you think saying “for the sake of argument� changes anything?

In post 22 you wrote, �But rather than getting sidetracked further by those particulars we can readily accept that as a viable position.�

You grant for the sake of argument. Truman and Churchill committed genocide, in order to still capture Moses even though in doing so intellectual suicide must be committed. And I’m the one who gets accused of being disingenuous?

The fact that you think this about 'capturing' Moses - rather than fairly simple, objective facts and definitions - possibly reveals something. If you had a coherent case to make that Moses' actions and commands don't fall under the definition of genocide, I'm sure you would have made it in your first half a dozen posts; there was and is no real question of Moses 'escaping' that description, regardless how clever you imagine the trap you've set is

As I've pointed out before, I have no obligation and currently little interest in exhaustive research and discussion of the actions of Churchill and Truman, and you had made a decent case for at least the possibility that their actions matched the UN definition. But now you are suggesting that it is "intellectual suicide" to admit any viability to your arguments. I'm starting to think that's true: I'll certainly try to avoid that mistake going forwards!



In any case, this dead horse has already been beaten far more than it deserved. If you've got a coherent case to make that the actions and commands of Moses don't match the definition of genocide I'll certainly be interested in seeing it - though I'm not exactly holding my breath - but I won't be wasting any more time on this Truman/Churchill diversion.

[Goose]

Doesn’t matter why you offered the second definition/description. It still implies the same absurdity. As for the numbers I didn’t digress on that point because they are irrelevant. It’s either genocide or it is not. Whether 8,000 were killed or 8,000,000 is irrelevant to that fact.

I'm pretty sure the main point of the thread is that whereas the monster Hitler slaughtered some six million Jews on religious/ethnic grounds, Moses commanded the Jews to slaughter an even greater number of Canaanites on religious/ethnic grounds. I can certainly see why you would like those numbers to lose their relevancy.

They aren’t relevant to whether it’s genocide. It’s either genocide or it isn’t. The main point you argued in your first post was that Moses committed genocide. It’s only as it’s become apparent that argument was quite fallacious that you’ve been pushing this scaling argument. What does this scale argument imply about smaller scale genocides such as Bosnia and Rwanda?

As for your argument here regarding slaughtering on ethnic grounds. Of course this ignores the justification the Israelites had for waging war on those nations. It was not merely ethnically motivated. Just as it ignores the justification the Americans had for waging war on Japan or the British on Germany.

Your overly simplistic argument here that slaughtering on ethnic grounds is an act of genocide makes the entire American war against Japan a massive act of genocide where millions of Japanese, including women and children, were slaughtered. To think the Americans were not killing the Japanese based on ethnicity is naive. There was a very clear, though somewhat understandable, American anti-Japanese sentiment during WWII. It even extended to Japanese Americans under Executive Order 9066 where they were forcibly relocated to camps.



And you want to argue there was no large scale racially motivated killing of the “Japs/Nips� by Americans?

Moses' actions against the Midianites and commands against the nations of Canaan clearly and uneqivocally fall under the UN definition of genocide; so clearly that you haven't even attempted to show otherwise.

Of course I have. I’ve shown it through arguing a kind of reductio ad absurdum. If the actions of Moses fall under the definition of genocide, then so do the actions of Truman and Churchill. Either they are all guilty of genocide or none of them are.

Pointing out this fact does not imply that Churchill or Cortez or Bob down the street committed genocide.

It certainly does if the acts of Truman and Churchill fit the same definition. For the life of me, I can’t understand why you are arguing against that.

Nor does pointing out that fact about Moses incur any onus to go through all the details of what Churchill, Cortez or Bob down the street did in order to ascertain their genocide status.

I’ve argued this way for two reasons. 1) It’s a way of showing your argument that Moses’ actions fit the UN definition of genocide has no logical validity since it implies a contradiction and 2) it forces you into a Special Plea attempting to excuse Truman and Churchill for the similar kinds of acts of bombing Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Dresden. Thereby demonstrating a double standard on your part. When Truman slaughtered lots of people, including women and children, that wasn’t genocide. But when Moses did it, it was.

You have argued that Churchill and Truman committed genocide on the basis of the UN definition.

I’ve argued your argument implies that.

Of course that's entirely irrelevant in any case unless you were arguing against that definition, but you could legitimately say you are arguing that "The UN definition implies Churchill committed genocide."

I’m arguing against your reasoning and incorrect application of the definition.

Saying that use of that definition implies on my part various other accusations of genocide that I'd neither mentioned nor even considered would be imprecise initially... and after I explicitly contradicted and argued for the opposite conclusion (regardless of whether you want to accept my disagreement) it is, quite simply, a lie to say that my argument 'implies' the opposite of what I'd argued!

Why is that a lie? Look, the way you’ve argued regarding Moses implies Truman and Churchill committed genocide. Your only way out is to make a Special Plea for Truman and Churchill to excuse them. I’ve shown those reasons fail to exonerate them or those same kinds of reasons can be applied to Moses to exonerate him as well.

Haha, okay logically 'valid,'...

Why are you laughing and why are you putting valid in scare quotes? That argument is inescapably valid. If you think not, explain why not.

...but obviously not sound

Obviously not sound? You’ve conceded the argument is valid (or is that another “for the sake of argument� thing?). And you’ve explicitly affirmed the antecedent Case A.

You're "contraposing" and "Modus Ponensing" all over the place, but you don't know what the terms valid and sound mean? Your claim that it cannot be the case that Moses committed genocide unless Truman also committed genocide (2. Not case A unless case B) is obviously ridiculous - doesn't matter how 'valid' the logic is with nonsense premises like that.

Hold on a minute. You were the one who explicitly assigned to me the argument Not case A unless case B. In post 25 you said:

• â€�We have a word/definition whose particulars do apply to case A: You're trying to argue that we must not accept the fact that this word applies to case A, unless we also assert that it applies to case B.â€�

You then incorrectly said, �Obviously I don't agree that it's a valid argument...�

I showed you how that argument is unquestionably valid here in post 27. So stop putting valid in scare quotes like there is some question as to that argument’s validity. As for being sound. A sound argument is one which is both logically valid and has true premises. You concede it’s logically valid and you explicitly affirmed the antecedent Case A. You then question if it’s sound. Or do you think there is a reason to question the antecedent Case A then? Clearly I’m not the one who is misunderstanding validity and soundness. The way you expressed that argument, it is sound.

As for the premise Moses did not commit genocide unless Truman and Churchill did. That could be argued on the basis they are all acts of war between nations at total war. As such if one is genocide it implies they all are. You find yourself in this contradictory and thus absurd position because your argument does not take this into account. The key element of Genocide that makes it genocide is that it is unlawful killing. That’s what makes it an “-ide� like homicide. If genocide is merely killing a mass amount of people then virtually all acts of war are genocide. If genocide is merely ethnically motivated killing then the American war on the Japanese was genocide. If genocide is merely the combination of those two then the American bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are genocide.

Again, this is an apparently wilfully inaccurate depiction of my posts: I explicitly said at least two times that for the sake of argument I would grant your key premise of an equivalency between the genocide status of Moses and Churchill/Truman.

What makes you think saying “for the sake of argument� changes anything?

In post 22 you wrote, �But rather than getting sidetracked further by those particulars we can readily accept that as a viable position.�

You grant for the sake of argument. Truman and Churchill committed genocide, in order to still capture Moses even though in doing so intellectual suicide must be committed. And I’m the one who gets accused of being disingenuous?

The fact that you think this about 'capturing' Moses - rather than fairly simple, objective facts and definitions - possibly reveals something.

What do you think it reveals? You granted, for the sake of argument, that Truman and Churchill committed genocide to still capture Moses and move the debate past this argument you’ve repeatedly asserted to be a diversion. I don’t blame you though. I can understand how one arguing as you are would want to hurry past this.

If you had a coherent case to make that Moses' actions and commands don't fall under the definition of genocide, I'm sure you would have made it in your first half a dozen posts; there was and is no real question of Moses 'escaping' that description, regardless how clever you imagine the trap you've set is

I have a coherent case. It’s that your argument implies a contradiction.

As I've pointed out before, I have no obligation and currently little interest in exhaustive research and discussion of the actions of Churchill and Truman, and you had made a decent case for at least the possibility that their actions matched the UN definition.

Well hey, if you want to go ahead and hold the irrational position that Truman and Churchill committed genocide even though we both know you don’t really believe that (based on your repeated arguments against the idea) and even though they have never been found guilty let alone formally charged with genocide just so you can say Moses committed genocide and move the argument along, be my guest. There’s no law against arguing irrationally. Just keep in mind the argument is logically invalid and thus accusing Moses of genocide has no rational foundation. It’s nothing more than a pejorative and emotive accusation.

But now you are suggesting that it is "intellectual suicide" to admit any viability to your arguments.

I’m suggesting it is intellectual suicide to hold to a premise that implies a contradiction.

I'm starting to think that's true: I'll certainly try to avoid that mistake going forwards!

I will consider that progress.

If you've got a coherent case to make that the actions and commands of Moses don't match the definition of genocide I'll certainly be interested in seeing it - though I'm not exactly holding my breath - but I won't be wasting any more time on this Truman/Churchill diversion.

What do you think I’ve been doing for that last few pages?

[Mithrae]

I'm pretty sure the main point of the thread is that whereas the monster Hitler slaughtered some six million Jews on religious/ethnic grounds, Moses commanded the Jews to slaughter an even greater number of Canaanites on religious/ethnic grounds. I can certainly see why you would like those numbers to lose their relevancy.

They aren’t relevant to whether it’s genocide. It’s either genocide or it isn’t. The main point you argued in your first post was that Moses committed genocide. It’s only as it’s become apparent that argument was quite fallacious that you’ve been pushing this scaling argument.

I think you need to read that post again; I responded to the absurd suggestion that it's only genocide if 100% of the victim group are wiped out, and besides refuting that the key points raised (additional to the fact that his actions meet the definition of genocide) were that Moses' actions/commands constituted brutal aggression, that they were driven by religious and ethnic concerns and that the victims constituted an overwhelming majority of the target groups within Israelite reach. Your Churchill/Truman diversion spectacularly fails to have any relevance regarding any of those three points - all of which are also noteworthy (and horrific) similarities between Moses and Adolph Hitler.

If you've got a coherent case to make that the actions and commands of Moses don't match the definition of genocide I'll certainly be interested in seeing it - though I'm not exactly holding my breath - but I won't be wasting any more time on this Truman/Churchill diversion.

What do you think I’ve been doing for that last few pages?

Talking endlessly about Churchill and Truman in a thread about Moses, obviously.

Mind you, given the far stronger comparison between Moses and Hitler (in terms of being the aggressors, in ideology and claimed justifications, in scale of committed/commanded slaughters) your argument implies that Hitler did not commit genocide, nor indeed any of history's lesser butchers - a far more absurd conclusion than you're fallaciously imputing to me. Have fun Special Pleading otherwise

[Willum]

[Replying to post 34 by Mithrae]

Mind you, given the far stronger comparison between Moses and Hitler (in terms of being the aggressors, in ideology and claimed justifications, in scale of committed/commanded slaughters) your argument implies that Hitler did not commit genocide, nor indeed any of history's lesser butchers -

Great, now we have Christians saying Hitler wasn't a genocide.
I suppose that is because Hitler made everyone of his Nazi swear to God in order to become a Nazi, and that means Christian Germany, was a Christian, like himself...

It makes the mind swim, what theists will do for a being they can't even show exists.
What they will say in order to justify those beliefs.
and how quickly they fall when they see the hero of their proto-faith is worse than their greatest modern villain, and that villain was one of them....