Ah but other presidents are not the topic of conversation, at least as far as our conversation is concerned.
As to the rest of your statement, many genocides started with the intent of helping someone or another. Perhaps the trail of tears was not intended to CAUSE death, but it certainly took no steps to try and prevent it either. You cannot excuse the fact that they were basicly lead on a death march all the way to Mississippi against their will, intentions aside. Destroying a people merely to remove a "road block" is inherently evil and still qualifies as genocide, at least per international law. And thus it justifies the comparison to the Nazis, who tried to remove the Jews for the greater good of the continent (although a certain level of hatred was present their)
.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Trolling can be defined as "A art, one specifically designed to misdirect, anger, or confuse others by reporting meaningful information in a clear, coherent way."
One day I will go infinate on a token combo then drop Scramble verse and watch as the trolling begins. That day will be a good day.
We are talking about Jackson, yes. But if you had any understanding of why Jews were targeted by Hitler, you would realize how silly that comparison is.
Let's get back on topic though: Is your argument for removing a president strictly because of what evil they do or allow in their tenure? What are the goalposts you are using to justify removing Jackson?
He set an essential precedent of how the president became part of the law making process. Before Jackson, presidents seldom used the veto, believing that Congress should have had all the say in making the laws, and it was the President' responsibility to uphold the laws passed by Congress. Through a much more liberal use of the veto, Jackson made sure that Congress had to include the president, and make sure he was involved in the law making process.
You call this a positive? The Presidency is not a legislative office.
Let's get back on topic though: Is your argument for removing a president strictly because of what evil they do or allow in their tenure? What are the goalposts you are using to justify removing Jackson?
I believe violent mass murderers categorically should not be honored on our money. Apparently this is setting the bar too high?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Ah but other presidents are not the topic of conversation, at least as far as our conversation is concerned.
As to the rest of your statement, many genocides started with the intent of helping someone or another. Perhaps the trail of tears was not intended to CAUSE death, but it certainly took no steps to try and prevent it either. You cannot excuse the fact that they were basicly lead on a death march all the way to Mississippi against their will, intentions aside. Destroying a people merely to remove a "road block" is inherently evil and still qualifies as genocide, at least per international law. And thus it justifies the comparison to the Nazis, who tried to remove the Jews for the greater good of the continent (although a certain level of hatred was present their)
.
I am essentially asking you if "evil" (I am using the word loosely) automatically negates any good done. I'll get into specifics in a second:
Are you kidding? Jackson absolutely hated Indians. His campaigns against the Creeks and Seminoles were brutal well beyond military necessity.
Whom with which Americans at the time were at war with. As part of war, Jackson was obviously not a fan of people of the same race as the combatants. His goal was to kill the enemy. Is that not the point of war? To either force the other side to see it your way, or eliminate them in the process? I assume you are also going to hold Lincoln and FDR responsible for the prisoners housed during their tenures?
Even on a curve Jackson fails. Why shouldn't we instead honor someone like Martin Luther King who was ahead of his time?
I don't disagree. Why not put him on a penny/quarter, as Lincoln and Washington would still be represented in money, along side many other shrines.
Also not people I would want to see on money. (And not just because the face of John Calhoun haunts my nightmares.)
Fine.
No, when somebody is proposed as worthy of a great national honor, I don't think we should ignore the fact that they committed grave crimes.
And in what context at the time would they be considered crimes? Jackson didn't have the monopoly on policies that would make "Don't ask, don't tell" seem liberal by comparison? The Indians was a very unique experience, and were often times the enemy in multiple wars both before and after Jackson's time.
You call this a positive? The Presidency is not a legislative office
I thought it was obvious, but if you are going to be petty about my choice of words, the Executive Office of President, and the responsibilities of that office were forever changed. I would say it was an amazing and revolutionary change that helped nudge the way people viewed the President, considering people like Jefferson feared the president being a tyrant.
I believe violent mass murderers categorically should not be honored on our money. Apparently this is setting the bar too high?
Do you consider the forcible holding of African Americans to work until they die to be in the same category as those like Jackson? If we are using negative actions as a justifiable reason to remove Jackson, I would argue that every president before Lincoln should be removed from office. Not only did several of these men encourage slavery, but several were slaveowners themselves (Jefferson even worse than most if some of the rumors I hear from other historians can be confirmed).
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I clearly don't condone what Jackson did. But the slippery slope of actions that should mean that several men we worship in history today, participated in acts that would be considered horrendous in today's time should be taken into consideration.
Whom with which Americans at the time were at war with. As part of war, Jackson was obviously not a fan of people of the same race as the combatants. His goal was to kill the enemy. Is that not the point of war? To either force the other side to see it your way, or eliminate them in the process? I assume you are also going to hold Lincoln and FDR responsible for the prisoners housed during their tenures?
You are aware, are you not, of the concept of war crimes? The idea that even in a state of war some actions are unjustifiable? Jackson's Indian campaigns were on a different order of barbarity compared even to his own campaigns against European enemies.
And in what context at the time would they be considered crimes? Jackson didn't have the monopoly on policies that would make "Don't ask, don't tell" seem liberal by comparison? The Indians was a very unique experience, and were often times the enemy in multiple wars both before and after Jackson's time.
Wars don't just break out for no reason. Ask yourself why they were they were the enemy of the United States. Hint: it wasn't because Indian Hitler invaded Indian Poland.
I thought it was obvious, but if you are going to be petty about my choice of words, the Executive Office of President, and the responsibilities of that office were forever changed. I would say it was an amazing and revolutionary change that helped nudge the way people viewed the President, considering people like Jefferson feared the president being a tyrant.
Nixon, too, forever changed the way people view the president.
Do you consider the forcible holding of African Americans to work until they die to be in the same category as those like Jackson? If we are using negative actions as a justifiable reason to remove Jackson, I would argue that every president before Lincoln should be removed from office. Not only did several of these men encourage slavery, but several were slaveowners themselves (Jefferson even worse than most if some of the rumors I hear from other historians can be confirmed).
I am not a fan of Jefferson either. By my reading he wasn't "worse than most", but it doesn't matter whether or not he was worst than most, because what went on at Monticello was horrible, and if as I suspect Monticello was only typical of Virginia slave plantations, then that's all the more horrible. However, as toweringly hypocritical as he was to do so, Jefferson did speak and write about the equality of all people and the evils of slavery. (As Rochefoucauld observed, "Hypocrisy is the compliment which vice pays to virtue.") And many of his contemporaries were more consistent in their opposition to the institution. Franklin and Hamilton and Adams lived in a time of slavery and were unable to bring about its demise, but when we see their faces they can still justifiably stand as symbols for the American ideals that are slavery's antithesis.
But Andrew Jackson is at the very heart of that other great national shame that is Indian relations. The Indian wars and Indian removal policies didn't just happen during his lifetime, or even just sweep him along as a minor participant. He was the one in the driver's seat, first as General then as President. You complain about drawing a parallel between Jackson and Hitler, but there is a far closer parallel between these two military expansionist mass murderers than there is between a career Indian-fighter like Jackson and a Bostonian abolitionist lawyer like John Adams.
But the slippery slope of actions that should mean that several men we worship in history today, participated in acts that would be considered horrendous in today's time should be taken into consideration.
Why? If there's someone else in the canon of American heroes as awful as Jackson, then we damn well ought to ask of him exactly the same question we ask of Jackson: why is this guy in the canon of American heroes? Would you point to Jackson to justify this person's inclusion, the same way you're pointing to this person to justify Jackson's? Ought the reputation of terrible people to be maintained by a perverse circular logic? Of course not. Let Jackson fall, and let fall all the others propped up this way.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
But Andrew Jackson is at the very heart of that other great national shame that is Indian relations. The Indian wars and Indian removal policies didn't just happen during his lifetime, or even just sweep him along as a minor participant. He was the one in the driver's seat, first as General then as President. You complain about drawing a parallel between Jackson and Hitler, but there is a far closer parallel between these two military expansionist mass murderers than there is between a career Indian-fighter like Jackson and a Bostonian abolitionist lawyer like John Adams.
But the slippery slope of actions that should mean that several men we worship in history today, participated in acts that would be considered horrendous in today's time should be taken into consideration.
Why? If there's someone else in the canon of American heroes as awful as Jackson, then we damn well ought to ask of him exactly the same question we ask of Jackson: why is this guy in the canon of American heroes? Would you point to Jackson to justify this person's inclusion, the same way you're pointing to this person to justify Jackson's? Ought the reputation of terrible people to be maintained by a perverse circular logic? Of course not. Let Jackson fall, and let fall all the others propped up this way.
Just as Augustus Caesar advised his successors to not expand the empire too far, so too did Washington state a system to move around the Indians and to try to make peace with them. Washington's idea was to take a honeycomb approach and settle in land around settlements as they expanded westward as a country.
I find it, rather ironic, mostly that some conservatives hate Hamilton so much. If anything, he was the ur-conservative rather than the big government buffoon he was played out to be. While he cheated on his wife, and was too overly admitting to it in a public newspaper and a quirk individual. I think he kept trying to push to perfect himself, yet he did try to take advantage of Washington and as well as Jefferson himself. Which is rather strange that Hamilton wouldn't remain as the ideal for someone who created a national banking system, supported the free market in the US whenever Jefferson wanted old debt bills returned to their original owners after sale, and altogether the formulation of the early foundation economics.
I agree with you that Jackson should be taken down, while I feel he was intriguing as a person with his capacities like watching a Great White Shark hunt. Altogether, perhaps we should replace him with an Indian leader.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Life is a beautiful engineer, yet a brutal scientist.
That's a terrible idea. She made no meaningful contribution to society and in fact didn't contribute anything on her own. Anne Sullivan would be better, but she's also not even near the level required.
STATISTICS.
All of these "Let's eliminate bad cards" crusades are simply ignorant. And when they start to devolve into "WotC is conspiring to give us crappy cards," they just become embarrassing. MATH is conspiring to give you crappy cards.
I think Grant is on the $50 more for his accomplishments as a Union General in the Civil Warn rather than his accomplishments as President of the United States.
As for presidents that should be on the money: I would say Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Theodore Roosevelt, James Madison, and perhaps JFK.
Enfranchising women doesn't get Anthony in the conversation? Really? You don't feel that's a magnitude of accomplishment and impact?
Seriously, you would look at the fact that half the country has constitutionally-guaranteed voting rights and say, "Meh, no big deal. She totally couldn't compete in the boy's club with those achievements, we'd better help her out by giving her some bonus points for her character"? How patronizing can you get?
Where would you rank her in this list, judging only by the sum total of accomplishments:
Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Jackson, Lincoln, Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Eisenhower, John Marshall, Alexander Hamilton, Ben Franklin, Susan B Anthony.
I'm not trying to diminish Anthony's accomplishments, but the bar is very high when compared with people who were given the reigns to a nation.
My ranking:
1. Washington
2. Lincoln
3. Jefferson
4. FDR
5. Madison
6. Adams
7. Franklin
8. Marshall
9. Hamilton
10. Teddy Roosevelt
11. Eisenhower
12. Wilson
13. Jackson
14. Anthony
While on topic of noteworthy americans, I would second MLK and also nominate Linus Pauling. Then again Finnish euro coins have gooseberries, swans, and a lion that stabs itself in the head while dancing amongst flowers in them, so it can be argued that none of us have any idea of what should be minted/printed on money.
Let's get back on topic though: Is your argument for removing a president strictly because of what evil they do or allow in their tenure? What are the goalposts you are using to justify removing Jackson?
I believe violent mass murderers categorically should not be honored on our money. Apparently this is setting the bar too high?
Is the function of minting/printing historical characters on money to honor or to simply commemorate? There are characters that should be remembered but not honored. It goes without saying that military leaders often make important characters that in their time shaped history in a significant way, desirable or not, and sometimes the most horrible people and actions are the ones we need to remember the most.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Sage is occupied with the unspoken
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
Is the function of minting/printing historical characters on money to honor or to simply commemorate? There are characters that should be remembered but not honored. It goes without saying that military leaders often make important characters that in their time shaped history in a significant way, desirable or not, and sometimes the most horrible people and actions are the ones we need to remember the most.
Should I ask whether Hitler ought to be on the German euro, then, or would that be too obvious a riposte?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Is the function of minting/printing historical characters on money to honor or to simply commemorate? There are characters that should be remembered but not honored. It goes without saying that military leaders often make important characters that in their time shaped history in a significant way, desirable or not, and sometimes the most horrible people and actions are the ones we need to remember the most.
Should I ask whether Hitler ought to be on the German euro, then, or would that be too obvious a riposte?
Ultimately I posted my first reply in a form of question because I'm not sure what the basis on the decision of printing someone on money is, and because I feel that we need to have clear criteria on who we mint/print on money and why to answer the question of the thread. Do we print characters we want to represent ourselves, characters that accurately represent ourselves, to commemorate important characters in our history, to give us ideal characters to strive towards, or for some other purpose. How important is being famous, and would an educative function of printing less known characters be lucrative? There is a rather clear ideological premise in the statement that no mass murderers should be printed on the money: That being printed on a coin is a honor and paints a character in a positive or idealized light. Does it need to be so, and in light of that would a commemorative coin of tragic events in a nation's history be unmintable? Unfortunately we cannot really avoid the conversation regarding ideology under the thread title, since it will ultimately boil down to conflicting ideologies that form the basis for criteria that guides the decision. If we can agree on an ideology, then it becomes much easier to debate merits of different characters in light of said ideology.
In terms of eurocoins, a better question would be: "If there were people on the German euro, should Hitler be amongst them". As far as I'm aware all people on euro coins are either (current) leaders of monarchies, scientists, artists, or mythological figures. The goal is no doubt to avoid having controversial characters on money, especially since most war leaders in Europe used to go in war with each other and "war hero" is therefore inherently subjective. The best answer I can give to the improved question is that perhaps he should, though the educative function might be completely unnecessary since I doubt there exists a German (or an European adult) who has not heard of him. Is there any reason why Hitler should not be printed on money? The Germans clearly do not want him representing them, and he certainly is not an ideal character to strive towards, but in terms of historical significance he would certainly qualify.
On the topic of controversial people on money, I don't think Hitler has ever been minted on a coin but Paul von Hinderburg, who appointed him however reluctantly and played a significant part in the rise of Nazi Germany, has. Hungarian coins used to have Miklós Horthy - a person famous for passing anti-Jewish laws during the alliance with Nazi Germany. The Albanian 1 lek coin and the Greek 100 drachma coin used to have Alexander the Great on them, and that is a character certainly famous for bloodshed. The concept of war crimes most likely did not exist during his reign, but if it did we would judge him guilty of dozens. The Czechoslovakia 2 Koruna coin used to have Juraj Jánosík on it, and while there are numerous myths surrounding the man that probably explain his presence on the coin, in reality he was basically an outlaw and a highwayman. Russians used to have Lenin on their money, though that probably was an actual act of honor towards the character even if he was in multiple ways controversial.
Assuming that we make it for the next 2000 years, what are the chances of people thinking of Hitler the same way we think of Alexander the Great today? There are some striking similarities.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Sage is occupied with the unspoken
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
Assuming that we make it for the next 2000 years, what are the chances of people thinking of Hitler the same way we think of Alexander the Great today? There are some striking similarities.
The big historiographical difference is that the popular primary sources are sympathetic to Alexander and hostile to Hitler. Obviously the sheer magnitude of loathing for Hitler is not going to last forever, but I think it's still going to color the way he's remembered. At "best", he'll be like Genghis Khan rather than Alexander: possessing a vaguely villainous reputation, which some historians will attempt to rehabilitate in order to appear edgy and contrarian. (I am reminded of the epilogue of The Handmaid's Tale.)
But the big historical difference is that Hitler lost the war and died in abject shame as his empire collapsed around him. Unlike Alexander and Genghis Khan, his future defenders will not be able to say, "At least he got this-and-that done", because the only one of his goals he actually accomplished was killing a lot of people he didn't like. The other long-term effects of World War II are all diametrically opposed to what Hitler wanted: the democratization of Germany, the expansion of Soviet communist influence in Europe, the establishment of a Jewish state... So even setting aside the moral dimension of his actions, as we do for many of these earlier warlords, the man was a complete failure as a leader.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I am not sure if Alexander's reputation is that good, at least Finnish textbooks paint him in a rather mediocre light. While his ability as a general is appreciated, he is basically pictured as a reckless warmongering leader who failed to do anything to control his empire - which collapsed nearly instantly after his death, which happened at the early age of 32. The man was also strongly criticized by his peers, and his military campaign ended in nothing less than a mutiny. Alexander was a great general but not much else, while Hitler was definitely a great propagandist and speaker who was very successful at promoting economic growth. Lack of strengths in other areas was their downfall: Hitler was either genuinely bonkers and had serious delusions of grandeur about Germany's ability to wage war or simply assumed that he would be unable to prevail as a leader without a common enemy, and Alexander had no idea how to actually govern the nation he established. Though it can be argued that during his time no one knew how to govern a nation of that size, and the Roman empire was the first one that was remotely successful in that area.
Genghis Khan in contrast to both of these figures was highly successful. He created the largest empire on earth during his time, and the empire remained and even expanded further for a considerable amount of time after his death. He also adopted a new writing system and promoted religious freedom, while creating conditions that allowed silk road to function properly thus encouraging trade and spreading of ideas. Partly owning to it's sheer size his empire was one of the most culturally diverse and meritocratic ones in the world. All these feats despite coming from a homeless family, unlike Alexander who was born into royalty. He might be the poster-boy for rags-to-riches success.
It might be a case of cultural bias, but at least in Finland Genghis Khan is pictured in a much more positive light than Alexander, and both in significantly better light than Hitler.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Sage is occupied with the unspoken
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
I am not sure if Alexander's reputation is that good, at least Finnish textbooks paint him in a rather mediocre light. While his ability as a general is appreciated, he is basically pictured as a reckless warmongering leader who failed to do anything to control his empire - which collapsed nearly instantly after his death, which happened at the early age of 32.
Alexander's empire was divided, yes, but so was Genghis Khan's. And because of Alexander and the successor states, Greek was the lingua franca of the Near East until the Islamic era. Last time I checked, they don't speak German in France (or Mongolian in China, for that matter). This makes Alexander significant for what he did, as opposed to Hitler, who is significant only for what he failed to do.
Hitler was... very successful at promoting economic growth.
Nnnno. The Nazi reputation for industry was largely a front projected by their propaganda machine. Their economy was a corrupt shambles (look at what Oskar Schindler was able to do). They reached full employment during the prewar buildup, but real wages fell by a quarter. Their war machine was built on massive debt and the confiscated wealth of Jews.
Though it can be argued that during his time no one knew how to govern a nation of that size, and the Roman empire was the first one that was remotely successful in that area.
The Persian Empire would like a word. Lasted for over two centuries, and at its peak, ruled an estimated 44% of the entire world population. There was a reason Alexander was trying to adopt Persian administrative customs, however it may have baffled his generals. I'm not saying he definitely would have built a stable empire had he not died unexpectedly... but he did die unexpectedly, which destroyed his plans whatever they may have been.
Genghis Khan in contrast to both of these figures was highly successful. He created the largest empire on earth during his time, and the empire remained and even expanded further for a considerable amount of time after his death. He also adopted a new writing system and promoted religious freedom, while creating conditions that allowed silk road to function properly thus encouraging trade and spreading of ideas. Partly owning to it's sheer size his empire was one of the most culturally diverse and meritocratic ones in the world. All these feats despite coming from a homeless family, unlike Alexander who was born into royalty. He might be the poster-boy for rags-to-riches success.
God knows I'm not denying his success. If history had a leaderboard his initials would be right at the top. But one does not create an empire of that size without building a few pyramids of human skulls. And unlike with Alexander, most of the histories of the Mongol conquests were written down by the people they were conquering - The Secret History of the Mongols didn't enter mainstream scholarship until the 20th Century. So Genghis Khan tends to play a villainous role in popular history. It's interesting that you report the revisionist interpretation has become dominant in Finland.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I am not sure if Alexander's reputation is that good, at least Finnish textbooks paint him in a rather mediocre light. While his ability as a general is appreciated, he is basically pictured as a reckless warmongering leader who failed to do anything to control his empire - which collapsed nearly instantly after his death, which happened at the early age of 32.
Alexander's empire was divided, yes, but so was Genghis Khan's. And because of Alexander and the successor states, Greek was the lingua franca of the Near East until the Islamic era. Last time I checked, they don't speak German in France (or Mongolian in China, for that matter).
The mongol population of China is nearly double that of the population of state of Mongolia. They eat sorghum, carrots and turnips, farm cotton, and use the middle-eastern cartography system in China - all of which were introduced during Yuan dynasty. Europe can thank that trade made possible by Pax Mongolica for printing techniques, hydraulic engineering, purified saltpetre, porcelain, and a significant part of medical literature. This was also the first time China got a widespread system of granaries. One could argue that the impacts of these advancements, particularly the introduction of sorghum to China and purified saltpetre and printing techniques to Europe were very significant. I would argue that they were more significant than spreading a language.
Hitler was... very successful at promoting economic growth.
Nnnno. The Nazi reputation for industry was largely a front projected by their propaganda machine. Their economy was a corrupt shambles (look at what Oskar Schindler was able to do). They reached full employment during the prewar buildup, but real wages fell by a quarter. Their war machine was built on massive debt and the confiscated wealth of Jews.
And the Macedonian war machine was built on the Macedonian phalanx and the sarissa, developed by Philip II.
Germany recovered from the great depression very effectively compared to other European countries. It used a number of practices that were not necessarily desirable by the public, such as forced labour of 'undesirables' and lowering of the wages alongside the average standard of living, but it sure was efficient. In a country hit really hard by the great depression, debt/GNP remained relatively stable from 1932 to 1938, while money/gnp ratio decreased. Many of the signs go against the Keynesian interpretation of high deficit spending, despite significant public demand expansion (Ritschl 2000).
Ritschl, Albrecht. (2000). Deficit Spending in the Nazi Recovery, 1933-1938: A Critical Reassessment, University of Zurich
Thus massive debt is definitely an overstatement, as it did not skyrocket until during the World War 2. The accounts of ~342 million RM gathered from Reich Flight Tax during 1938 and less earlier also do not make up a significant part of the economy, considering that in 1938 the government spending was 24 billion RM. Even the single largest confiscation of 1938 following the Kristallnacht was only roughly one billion - which was significant but not enough to be an explaining cause. While rebound-effect is in part an explaining factor, it does not explain the size of the growth. The forced insistence on low wages has been suggested as an explanation for the economic growth, but there isn't sufficient analysis to demonstrate that to be true.
Though it can be argued that during his time no one knew how to govern a nation of that size, and the Roman empire was the first one that was remotely successful in that area.
The Persian Empire would like a word. Lasted for over two centuries, and at its peak, ruled an estimated 44% of the entire world population. There was a reason Alexander was trying to adopt Persian administrative customs, however it may have baffled his generals. I'm not saying he definitely would have built a stable empire had he not died unexpectedly... but he did die unexpectedly, which destroyed his plans whatever they may have been.
Duly noted. Although it seems that many of the policies Alexander was attempting to adopt were not necessarily the most efficient ones, as it could be argued that Persian empire was successful owing to the relatively autonomous nature of the territories. The Persian empire also struggled with numerous insurgencies, which would suggest that they were not quite as efficient as they could have been. Furthermore the fact that Alexander did not begin building the empire while conquering already speaks volumes: By comparison Genghis Khan was relatively successful at doing both at the same time, perhaps as a result of granting high autonomy to his generals.
But one does not create an empire of that size without building a few pyramids of human skulls. And unlike with Alexander, most of the histories of the Mongol conquests were written down by the people they were conquering - The Secret History of the Mongols didn't enter mainstream scholarship until the 20th Century. So Genghis Khan tends to play a villainous role in popular history. It's interesting that you report the revisionist interpretation has become dominant in Finland.
Genghis Khan has historically been rather popular and well-regarded character in Turkey, Kazakhstan, and of course Mongolia. Perhaps the euro-centric view of reports from Hungary and Poland, or the fact that he is widely despised in non-Turk middle-eastern countries is the explaining factor. Also: Few pyramids is clearly an underestimate, Genghis Khan clearly gathered enough skulls for at least 50 pyramids.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Sage is occupied with the unspoken
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
I would argue that they were more significant than spreading a language.
Look, I've already gone on the record saying that Genghis Khan won history. We're not having an Alexander vs. Temujin debate. And I can't help but think that a misplaced sense of competition is driving you to make some uncharitable assumptions. You're well enough read to already know that language was far from the only thing the Greeks spread. I was alluding to a much broader cultural transmission - the point being that this sort of transmission utterly failed to happen after World War II. In fact, the Americans and Russians transmitted much of their cultures into the divided Germany... because, and I repeat myself, Alexander and Genghis Khan won, but Hitler lost.
It used a number of practices that were not necessarily desirable by the public, such as forced labour of 'undesirables' and lowering of the wages alongside the average standard of living, but it sure was efficient.
Genghis Khan has historically been rather popular and well-regarded character in Turkey, Kazakhstan, and of course Mongolia. Perhaps the euro-centric view of reports from Hungary and Poland, or the fact that he is widely despised in non-Turk middle-eastern countries is the explaining factor.
I'm not personally familiar with the primary sources here, but my understanding is that the main sources on Genghis Khan and the Mongol conquests in the West were Islamic Persian histories. I expect on the other side of the continent the Chinese historians had a few things to say as well. Contrast Alexander, where the main sources were Greek histories. So mainstream historical discourse for many centuries was hero worship of Alexander and vilification of Genghis Khan. Now, Hitler's legacy, because everything written about him in the immediate aftermath of his life has been (to say the least) unsympathetic, is more likely to follow the model of Genghis Khan than Alexander.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
What's the goal of putting figures on government money?
Unless it's to, "remind people of horrible stuff your country did in recent history and wildly offend people" - then putting Hitler on government money is a pretty bad idea.
Andrew Jackson was a genocidal, corrupt freakshow too - but most people seem not to be aware of this. Ironically, taking him OFF the currency would just call more attention to the embarrassing chapter in America's history. Also, because he's been on the currency for a while now, people today can say when the topic is brought up that THEY wouldn't be in favor of endorsing him, that no one's okay with genocide, and so the current generation isn't endorsing the guy - the presence on the currency is just a piece of history. Iffy argument, but it allows people to skirt direct blame. Meanwhile, if anyone directly decided today to put Hitler on a bill then that person would have a lot of explaining to do.
Also, I'm not sure I want America's bloody past swept under the rug. I kind of appreciate the reminder whenever the manifest destiny gets popular.
Indian Removal Act, at least the titles of laws back then were accurate.
I figure removing Lincoln or Grant would encourage neo-Confederates.
Lincoln has the penny and the $5, but the penny might go eventually. Similar for Washington having the paper dollar as well as the quarter.
Nothing in particular against Hamilton or Franklin.
So if someone else was to be put on a bill, Jackson would be the one to go. Not sure who else I would pick - female, nonwhite, or both.
I would argue that they were more significant than spreading a language.
Look, I've already gone on the record saying that Genghis Khan won history. We're not having an Alexander vs. Temujin debate. And I can't help but think that a misplaced sense of competition is driving you to make some uncharitable assumptions. You're well enough read to already know that language was far from the only thing the Greeks spread. I was alluding to a much broader cultural transmission - the point being that this sort of transmission utterly failed to happen after World War II. In fact, the Americans and Russians transmitted much of their cultures into the divided Germany... because, and I repeat myself, Alexander and Genghis Khan won, but Hitler lost.
From what I gather we were having a debate about the ideological premises of coin minting and bill printing, though I admit that we have been sidetracked so far from the topic that everything in the past few posts is primarily insignificant. My main point was that the spread of a language really is not a good yardstick for cultural influence, though I admit I should have been more clear about that.
Also: Claiming that the transmission 'utterly failed to happen' is unfortunately not entirely accurate - though you are undeniably correct regarding the extent. And yes, you are right about Hitler losing the war.
It used a number of practices that were not necessarily desirable by the public, such as forced labour of 'undesirables' and lowering of the wages alongside the average standard of living, but it sure was efficient.
Oh come on, it's not like the ancient Greeks did not build their standard of living and considerably higher life expectancy by delegating physical labour to slaves. Or for a more recent example, Mao Zedong's reign was a horror story with few competitors. All I'm saying that if your goal was to arm a nation and establish functional infrastructure and industry, Nazi Germany was highly successful. Of course, if your goal is to establish better equality, happiness, free market and peace, Nazi Germany was highly unsuccessful. I do get the impression that Hitler was not a big fan of the latter group. In other words, I am arguing that Hitler was successful in at least one of his goals; however misguided that goal might have been.
I would also argue that he had good propaganda and oratory skills, considering that he was able to get into the position to do the things he did - I admit that it could be argued that the seeds of racially motivated violence and lebensraum thinking were there even before him, but even then he successfully rode those things into a position of unquestionable power. If he was a complete and utter failure as a character, he would have never had the opportunity to fail on such a grand scale as he did.
The Persian empire also struggled with numerous insurgencies, which would suggest that they were not quite as efficient as they could have been.
Whereas the Roman Empire, and all the other empires of history, were models of peace and stability?
As far as I understand there have been some debate regarding the internal struggles of Achaemenid empire, which may or may not have led to inevitable collapse. Though apparently there are modern scholars refute that. This is an area where I really am not well read enough to make informed claims. Either way, if Achaemenid empire was indeed successful and stable as some of the modern scholars suggest, that would only speak against Alexander for being unable to attain the same. I believe that it is safe to say that if something made the Achaemenid empire successful, it was not proskynesis.
Genghis Khan has historically been rather popular and well-regarded character in Turkey, Kazakhstan, and of course Mongolia. Perhaps the euro-centric view of reports from Hungary and Poland, or the fact that he is widely despised in non-Turk middle-eastern countries is the explaining factor.
I'm not personally familiar with the primary sources here, but my understanding is that the main sources on Genghis Khan and the Mongol conquests in the West were Islamic Persian histories. I expect on the other side of the continent the Chinese historians had a few things to say as well. Contrast Alexander, where the main sources were Greek histories. So mainstream historical discourse for many centuries was hero worship of Alexander and vilification of Genghis Khan. Now, Hitler's legacy, because everything written about him in the immediate aftermath of his life has been (to say the least) unsympathetic, is more likely to follow the model of Genghis Khan than Alexander.[/quote]
Islamic Persian histories would explain it, considering how negatively he is viewed there. The viewpoint of the Chinese is highly mixed from what I understand. I would agree you on the close history, but note that Genghis Khan is seeing a redemption only 800 years after his death - so by your argument following this model there could very well be a more positive outlook on Hitler in 2000 years (Indeed, it really only takes one of those neo-nazi parties getting into power.) Of course, it is probably fair to say in light of this conversation that Hitler has a lower chance of redemption than Genghis Khan did, barring significant changes in the political environment.
What's the goal of putting figures on government money?
Good question, and I really do not know. It seems that the most claims regarding this rely on negation, of what it isn't, and what kind of characters should not be on the money.
Unless it's to, "remind people of horrible stuff your country did in recent history and wildly offend people" - then putting Hitler on government money is a pretty bad idea.
Is the key here recent history? Or is the key here political correctness over accurate representation of history? Perhaps the goal is simply "remind people of stuff your country did in history", paying no attention to whether or not that is grand or terrible.
Andrew Jackson was a genocidal, corrupt freakshow too - but most people seem not to be aware of this. Ironically, taking him OFF the currency would just call more attention to the embarrassing chapter in America's history. --
Also, I'm not sure I want America's bloody past swept under the rug. I kind of appreciate the reminder whenever the manifest destiny gets popular.
You seem to be holding two sort-of-contradictory viewpoints here - and further your latter stance could be used to argue for minting of Hitler on a coin. You know, just in case lebensraum gets popular.
Further, I fail to see what part of history is embarrassing - or how History can be embarrassing to begin with, unless you attempt to validate yourself with actions of others or the past. I really can't see how something that happened before your birth could be held against you, or for you for that matter.
Also, because he's been on the currency for a while now, people today can say when the topic is brought up that THEY wouldn't be in favor of endorsing him, that no one's okay with genocide, and so the current generation isn't endorsing the guy - the presence on the currency is just a piece of history. Iffy argument, but it allows people to skirt direct blame. Meanwhile, if anyone directly decided today to put Hitler on a bill then that person would have a lot of explaining to do.
The question was not will Hitler be on a bill, but rather should he - in which case we would need to answer the question you outlined in the first sentence of your post.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Sage is occupied with the unspoken
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
Not sure where you think I'm holding two contradictory viewpoints Amadi. Calling attention in a short burst would not have the same long-term memorial. A short term focus in the news cycle vs. an enduring mark of a bloody legacy are two different things. If he'd been removed from the currency 10 years ago, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.
And yes, people do take pride and shame in the history of their nation, whether you think that's rational or not.
I don't have to articulate what the purpose of putting a figure on government money is, or taking one off. I'm pointing out the likely results such an action would have vs. continuing the status quo. If those results sound good to you, or meet a hypothetical goal, it should be done. If not, it shouldn't. I personally don't believe, based on Germany's history of trying to distance itself from the holocaust, that their goals mesh with the results of putting hitler on government currency.
Not sure where you think I'm holding two contradictory viewpoints Amadi. Calling attention in a short burst would not have the same long-term memorial. A short term focus in the news cycle vs. an enduring mark of a bloody legacy are two different things. If he'd been removed from the currency 10 years ago, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.
Fair enough, although it could be argued that significant enough press coverage would in turn influence the contents of school history books and as such raise awareness.
I don't have to articulate what the purpose of putting a figure on government money is, or taking one off. I'm pointing out the likely results such an action would have vs. continuing the status quo. If those results sound good to you, or meet a hypothetical goal, it should be done. If not, it shouldn't. I personally don't believe, based on Germany's history of trying to distance itself from the holocaust, that their goals mesh with the results of putting hitler on government currency.
So you are arguing from the utilitarian perspective, and the goal is therefore to maximize the utility for the Germans - or perhaps from the perspective of state consequentialism or preference utilitarianism. My viewpoint is primarily from the side of intellectualism and thus choosing the action that maximizes knowledge. As you can see, you still cannot dodge the questions of ideology here - you can merely adopt a certain stance, though in this case you have worded your stance so vaguely that it could fall under more than one axiologies of consequentialism.
Furthermore you seem to be promoting intellectualism in the case of Andrew Jackson and state consequentialism/utilitarianism/preference utilitarianism in the case of Hitler.
The Sage is occupied with the unspoken
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
Fair enough, although it could be argued that significant enough press coverage would in turn influence the contents of school history books and as such raise awareness.
Hence why I said I'm unsure on that issue.
But should we actively conform to, and encourage such irrational behaviour?
That's backwards. When setting policy you're looking at the results your action will cause. You can complain the reactions aren't going to be rational, but they're still going to exist.
Besides, ignoring how people respond to symbolism when dealing with a purely symbolic issue isn't very sound.
So you are arguing from the utilitarian perspective, and the goal is therefore to maximize the utility for the Germans - or perhaps from the perspective of state consequentialism or preference utilitarianism.
My viewpoint is primarily from the side of intellectualism and thus choosing the action that maximizes knowledge. As you can see, you still cannot dodge the questions of ideology here - you can merely adopt a certain stance, though in this case you have worded your stance so vaguely that it could fall under more than one axiologies of consequentialism.
Trying to meld my position into those broader topics muddies things significantly, which is probably why you're having the issues you state. It brings a lot of baggage.
I'm simply stating what I believe to be the likely result of putting Hitler on government currency. Then I'm suggesting that if you find that result undesirable, you shouldn't do it. I've also stated that, based on Germany's recent history of trying to distance themselves from the holocaust, I believe the government would find that result undesirable.
It's the same as this:
"Should Barry try jumping out a ten story window?"
"If he does, he's going to fall and die. Unless he wants that to happen, it's a bad idea."
Do you have an issue with these two sentences?
Furthermore you are promoting intellectualism in the case of Andrew Jackson and state consequentialism/utilitarianism/preference utilitarianism in the case of Hitler.
Nope. I have made statements on what I believe to be the likely result of both decisions. I have not endorsed either regarding Jackson.
But should we actively conform to, and encourage such irrational behaviour?
That's backwards. When setting policy you're looking at the results your action will cause. You can complain the reactions aren't going to be rational, but they're still going to exist.
You're looking at the results of your actions, I.E: Consequences. Which is consequentialism. Let me quote Wikipedia for you:
Consequentialism (Teleology) argues that the morality of an action is contingent on the action's outcome or result
And I agree on this topic, I simply do not agree on the axiology. In other words, I am completely fine offending a lot of people or causing waves if it means improvement in the spread of knowledge.
So you are arguing from the utilitarian perspective, and the goal is therefore to maximize the utility for the Germans - or perhaps from the perspective of state consequentialism or preference utilitarianism.
My viewpoint is primarily from the side of intellectualism and thus choosing the action that maximizes knowledge. As you can see, you still cannot dodge the questions of ideology here - you can merely adopt a certain stance, though in this case you have worded your stance so vaguely that it could fall under more than one axiologies of consequentialism.
Trying to meld my position into those broader topics muddies things significantly, which is probably why you're having the issues you state. It brings a lot of baggage.
I find it more than slightly patronizing that simply because I view your stance to be contradictory you assume I have issues.
Furthermore, your claim to not fall under these broader topics is amusing, considering you basically defined consequentialism there. Simply because you do not acknowledge the ideological biases of your stance does not mean they are not present. I have also repeatedly demonstrated that any argument or debate on the topic that ignores the broader ideological frameworks, within which it inevitably will take place, will be incomplete and mostly formed out of unsubstantiated opinions. This is simply because we cannot assume that an action has only single outcome, or that there is only one party with interests regarding that outcome.
I'm simply stating what I believe to be the likely result of putting Hitler on government currency.
You are stating what you believe to be one of the likely results (Or then you assume there is simply one result.) - and your bias towards certain kinds of results rather than others implies that your form of consequentialism is one of the three I outlined earlier. In other words, you are ignoring a large amount of potential outcomes and either assuming that they are trivial, or at the very least not as important as the ones you noted.
Then I'm suggesting that if you find that result undesirable, you shouldn't do it. I've also stated that, based on Germany's recent history of trying to distance themselves from the holocaust, I believe the government would find that result undesirable.
First of all, the question was whether or not Hitler should be on the Euro coin rather than whether or not it is in certain party's interests to mint him on the coin - which is fundamentally different since the former needs to consider interests of multiple parties rather than just one. (Even then, "Germany" is a rather broad group with diverse views.)
Second of all, your form of reasoning can be used to argue that any action that has negative consequences should not be done, even if it does have positive consequences.
Third of all, this is an appeal on probability - and one without any supporting cases to back up the assumption that a certain outcome is even likely.
"Should Barry try jumping out a ten story window?"
"If he does, he's going to fall and die. Unless he wants that to happen, it's a bad idea."
Do you have an issue with these two sentences?
Multiple issues, in fact. They are a crass oversimplification of the situation and they completely and utterly ignore the context of the situation - which in fact has never been outlined anywhere. Context, especially in a case such as this, is rather important. This is the equivalent of physics question assuming that everything moves at the speed of light and in perfect vacuum. Furthermore it is a ridiculously weak analogy that bears very little to no similarity to the present case, it has low relevance and there are very few cases that would give rise to it. Even if I were to accept it at face value, paying no heed to the possibility that Barry could survive or that there would be other consequences:
"If you jump out of a window you will die."
"If you mint Hitler on a coin people will get mad."
The dissimilarities are striking. One of the consequences involves one person, other one involves a lot of persons. It is also unclear what kind of people will get mad, whereas the analogy has a clear result of Barry being the one dying. It also does not invalidate the fact that there can be other consequences, which might easily be more important than the one you outlined - especially in the second case. It is also notable that other persons might have interests in Barry jumping out of the window and dying, and you completely fail to consider them - implying some sympathy towards the stance of ethical egoism by implying that Barry should do what is in his interests.
Furthermore you are promoting intellectualism in the case of Andrew Jackson and state consequentialism/utilitarianism/preference utilitarianism in the case of Hitler.
Nope. I have made statements on what I believe to be the likely result of both decisions. I have not endorsed either regarding Jackson.
First of all, you need not take a stance when the ideology is clearly present in what you assume to be the likely results or at least the most important results.
Second of all, claiming certain results that are obviously negative to be likely you are taking a stance. Your claim here is roughly the equivalent of saying "All the results of minting Hitler on a coin can be construed as negative, but I do not have a stance about minting Hitler on a coin." Your stance is strongly implied in your argument, and you are merely shifting responsibility for holding the stance away from yourself.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Sage is occupied with the unspoken
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
Consequentialism (Teleology) argues that the morality of an action is contingent on the action's outcome or result
Your mistake here is the assumption of the discussion of morality. Consequentialism brings in a lot of ethical and moral baggage. I’m talking about simple, practical analysis. The reason for Barry not jumping out a window in the context of my example, isn’t an ethical issue. It’s a gravity issue.
I find it more than slightly patronizing that simply because I view your stance to be contradictory you assume I have issues.
You said you were having trouble fitting my stance into just one of the axiologies of consequentialism. That is the “issue” I was referring to. You can believe I’m the one causing the difficulty, but it isn’t patronizing to reference the difficulty you yourself brought up.
Furthermore, your claim to not fall under these broader topics is amusing, considering you basically defined consequentialism there.
Because it’s not necessary to fit a simple issue of a practical decision into a system of thought designed for talking about ethics and morality. Focus on refuting my specific argument and it’ll be easier on all of us. If you think a counter-argument inspired by ethical discussions of consequentialism applies here, go for it. Just refute my specific argument.
Simply because you do not acknowledge the ideological biases of your stance does not mean they are not present.
It’s present only in the loosest possible sense.
“Should I look both ways before I cross the street?”
“If you don’t, you’ll run a higher risk of getting run over. I assume you don’t want to get run over, so you probably want to look both ways.”
What ideology is at work here? I’m not even advocating a position on my own. I’m simply laying out the likely result of a decision and making an informed assumption of what that person’s priorities are. I have not even specifically endorsed those priorities.
This is why trying to wind things around to consequentionalism is a red herring. It’s bringing a bunch of baggage beyond the boundaries of what I’m talking about.
You are stating what you believe to be one of the likely results (Or then you assume there is simply one result.) - and your bias towards certain kinds of results rather than others implies that your form of consequentialism is one of the three I outlined earlier. In other words, you are ignoring a large amount of potential outcomes and either assuming that they are trivial, or at the very least not as important as the ones you noted.
We both know it's not practical to list every possible consequence of a given action. If you believe I've overlooked or undervalued an important factor, we can talk about that. If not, we don't have to bother.
Either way, there's no point to this complaint. I could easily poke at your argument and bring up a bunch of potential consequences you havnen't explicitly stated considering in your argument. For example, I don't believe you've stated your analysis of how additional media coverage of a well-known figure like Hitler might edge out coverage of less well-known subjects... Thus possibly hurting the spread of certain knowledge. In other words, you are ignoring a large amount of potential outcomes and either assuming hat they are trivial or at the very least not as important as the ones you noted.
Then I'm suggesting that if you find that result undesirable, you shouldn't do it. I've also stated that, based on Germany's recent history of trying to distance themselves from the holocaust, I believe the government would find that result undesirable.
First of all, the question was whether or not Hitler should be on the Euro coin rather than whether or not it is in certain party's interests to mint him on the coin - which is fundamentally different since the former needs to consider interests of multiple parties rather than just one. (Even then, "Germany" is a rather broad group with diverse views.)
I was talking about Hitler in regards to German currency because it’s a more direct parallel to Jackson on American currency. The euro is a less direct analogy.
Second of all, your form of reasoning can be used to argue that any action that has negative consequences should not be done, even if it does have positive consequences.
Then it can also be used to argue that elvis is alive. After all, I never specifically say that elvis isn’t alive do I? Just as I never specifically say that you should weigh positive results against negative ones. As long as you’re making wild generalizations based on what I’m not saying, why not bring elvis in too?
Third of all, this is an appeal on probability - and one without any supporting cases to back up the assumption that a certain outcome is even likely.
You really need to stop trying to fit everything said into model-shaped holes. Really, someone can’t even use the words “I think this is the most likely outcome…” Without you trying to claim an appeal to probability?
"Should Barry try jumping out a ten story window?"
"If he does, he's going to fall and die. Unless he wants that to happen, it's a bad idea."
Do you have an issue with these two sentences?
Multiple issues, in fact. They are a crass oversimplification of the situation and they completely and utterly ignore the context of the situation - which in fact has never been outlined anywhere. Context, especially in a case such as this, is rather important. This is the equivalent of physics question assuming that everything moves at the speed of light and in perfect vacuum.
It seems that we might be able to get anywhere. I was giving the sniper example as an indication of absurdity earlier, but it seems that you’d want that possibility drawn up and submitted in triplicate along with all the others.
Next time you decide to add salt to your popcorn, pause and consider how you managed to do it without 30 minutes of chemical analysis.
I think this conversation will be more productive if we start approaching it like this:
“Putting Hitler on german currency would cause a lot of negative results that the people in charge probably wouldn’t like.”
“Like what?”
“It would offend a lot of people and make them furious at the officials, which the officials probably don’t want. Also, German oficials are trying very hard to distance themselves from Hitler - so this would go against their goals.”
“I think you’re not factoring in all the results.”
“Oh? Like what?”
“It would certainly raise awareness of Hitler, for one thing, and that’s not a lesson we want to forget anytime soon. I think that benefit outweighs offending people.”
As to the rest of your statement, many genocides started with the intent of helping someone or another. Perhaps the trail of tears was not intended to CAUSE death, but it certainly took no steps to try and prevent it either. You cannot excuse the fact that they were basicly lead on a death march all the way to Mississippi against their will, intentions aside. Destroying a people merely to remove a "road block" is inherently evil and still qualifies as genocide, at least per international law. And thus it justifies the comparison to the Nazis, who tried to remove the Jews for the greater good of the continent (although a certain level of hatred was present their)
.
One day I will go infinate on a token combo then drop Scramble verse and watch as the trolling begins. That day will be a good day.
Let's get back on topic though: Is your argument for removing a president strictly because of what evil they do or allow in their tenure? What are the goalposts you are using to justify removing Jackson?
The GJ way path to no lynching:
Even on a curve Jackson fails. Why shouldn't we instead honor someone like Martin Luther King who was ahead of his time?
Also not people I would want to see on money. (And not just because the face of John Calhoun haunts my nightmares.)
No, when somebody is proposed as worthy of a great national honor, I don't think we should ignore the fact that they committed grave crimes.
You call this a positive? The Presidency is not a legislative office.
I believe violent mass murderers categorically should not be honored on our money. Apparently this is setting the bar too high?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I am essentially asking you if "evil" (I am using the word loosely) automatically negates any good done. I'll get into specifics in a second:
Whom with which Americans at the time were at war with. As part of war, Jackson was obviously not a fan of people of the same race as the combatants. His goal was to kill the enemy. Is that not the point of war? To either force the other side to see it your way, or eliminate them in the process? I assume you are also going to hold Lincoln and FDR responsible for the prisoners housed during their tenures?
I don't disagree. Why not put him on a penny/quarter, as Lincoln and Washington would still be represented in money, along side many other shrines.
Fine.
And in what context at the time would they be considered crimes? Jackson didn't have the monopoly on policies that would make "Don't ask, don't tell" seem liberal by comparison? The Indians was a very unique experience, and were often times the enemy in multiple wars both before and after Jackson's time.
I thought it was obvious, but if you are going to be petty about my choice of words, the Executive Office of President, and the responsibilities of that office were forever changed. I would say it was an amazing and revolutionary change that helped nudge the way people viewed the President, considering people like Jefferson feared the president being a tyrant.
Do you consider the forcible holding of African Americans to work until they die to be in the same category as those like Jackson? If we are using negative actions as a justifiable reason to remove Jackson, I would argue that every president before Lincoln should be removed from office. Not only did several of these men encourage slavery, but several were slaveowners themselves (Jefferson even worse than most if some of the rumors I hear from other historians can be confirmed).
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I clearly don't condone what Jackson did. But the slippery slope of actions that should mean that several men we worship in history today, participated in acts that would be considered horrendous in today's time should be taken into consideration.
The GJ way path to no lynching:
Because Jackson was a monster.
Wars don't just break out for no reason. Ask yourself why they were they were the enemy of the United States. Hint: it wasn't because Indian Hitler invaded Indian Poland.
Nixon, too, forever changed the way people view the president.
I am not a fan of Jefferson either. By my reading he wasn't "worse than most", but it doesn't matter whether or not he was worst than most, because what went on at Monticello was horrible, and if as I suspect Monticello was only typical of Virginia slave plantations, then that's all the more horrible. However, as toweringly hypocritical as he was to do so, Jefferson did speak and write about the equality of all people and the evils of slavery. (As Rochefoucauld observed, "Hypocrisy is the compliment which vice pays to virtue.") And many of his contemporaries were more consistent in their opposition to the institution. Franklin and Hamilton and Adams lived in a time of slavery and were unable to bring about its demise, but when we see their faces they can still justifiably stand as symbols for the American ideals that are slavery's antithesis.
But Andrew Jackson is at the very heart of that other great national shame that is Indian relations. The Indian wars and Indian removal policies didn't just happen during his lifetime, or even just sweep him along as a minor participant. He was the one in the driver's seat, first as General then as President. You complain about drawing a parallel between Jackson and Hitler, but there is a far closer parallel between these two military expansionist mass murderers than there is between a career Indian-fighter like Jackson and a Bostonian abolitionist lawyer like John Adams.
Why? If there's someone else in the canon of American heroes as awful as Jackson, then we damn well ought to ask of him exactly the same question we ask of Jackson: why is this guy in the canon of American heroes? Would you point to Jackson to justify this person's inclusion, the same way you're pointing to this person to justify Jackson's? Ought the reputation of terrible people to be maintained by a perverse circular logic? Of course not. Let Jackson fall, and let fall all the others propped up this way.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Just as Augustus Caesar advised his successors to not expand the empire too far, so too did Washington state a system to move around the Indians and to try to make peace with them. Washington's idea was to take a honeycomb approach and settle in land around settlements as they expanded westward as a country.
I find it, rather ironic, mostly that some conservatives hate Hamilton so much. If anything, he was the ur-conservative rather than the big government buffoon he was played out to be. While he cheated on his wife, and was too overly admitting to it in a public newspaper and a quirk individual. I think he kept trying to push to perfect himself, yet he did try to take advantage of Washington and as well as Jefferson himself. Which is rather strange that Hamilton wouldn't remain as the ideal for someone who created a national banking system, supported the free market in the US whenever Jefferson wanted old debt bills returned to their original owners after sale, and altogether the formulation of the early foundation economics.
I agree with you that Jackson should be taken down, while I feel he was intriguing as a person with his capacities like watching a Great White Shark hunt. Altogether, perhaps we should replace him with an Indian leader.
Modern
Commander
Cube
<a href="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/the-cube-forum/cube-lists/588020-unpowered-themed-enchantment-an-enchanted-evening">An Enchanted Evening Cube </a>
That's a terrible idea. She made no meaningful contribution to society and in fact didn't contribute anything on her own. Anne Sullivan would be better, but she's also not even near the level required.
As for presidents that should be on the money: I would say Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Theodore Roosevelt, James Madison, and perhaps JFK.
My Mafia Stats - My Helpdesk
G Omnath, Locus of Mana U Arcum Dagsson BUG The Mimeoplasm GW Gaddock Teeg X Karn, Silver Golem
My ranking:
1. Washington
2. Lincoln
3. Jefferson
4. FDR
5. Madison
6. Adams
7. Franklin
8. Marshall
9. Hamilton
10. Teddy Roosevelt
11. Eisenhower
12. Wilson
13. Jackson
14. Anthony
Is the function of minting/printing historical characters on money to honor or to simply commemorate? There are characters that should be remembered but not honored. It goes without saying that military leaders often make important characters that in their time shaped history in a significant way, desirable or not, and sometimes the most horrible people and actions are the ones we need to remember the most.
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Ultimately I posted my first reply in a form of question because I'm not sure what the basis on the decision of printing someone on money is, and because I feel that we need to have clear criteria on who we mint/print on money and why to answer the question of the thread. Do we print characters we want to represent ourselves, characters that accurately represent ourselves, to commemorate important characters in our history, to give us ideal characters to strive towards, or for some other purpose. How important is being famous, and would an educative function of printing less known characters be lucrative? There is a rather clear ideological premise in the statement that no mass murderers should be printed on the money: That being printed on a coin is a honor and paints a character in a positive or idealized light. Does it need to be so, and in light of that would a commemorative coin of tragic events in a nation's history be unmintable? Unfortunately we cannot really avoid the conversation regarding ideology under the thread title, since it will ultimately boil down to conflicting ideologies that form the basis for criteria that guides the decision. If we can agree on an ideology, then it becomes much easier to debate merits of different characters in light of said ideology.
In terms of eurocoins, a better question would be: "If there were people on the German euro, should Hitler be amongst them". As far as I'm aware all people on euro coins are either (current) leaders of monarchies, scientists, artists, or mythological figures. The goal is no doubt to avoid having controversial characters on money, especially since most war leaders in Europe used to go in war with each other and "war hero" is therefore inherently subjective. The best answer I can give to the improved question is that perhaps he should, though the educative function might be completely unnecessary since I doubt there exists a German (or an European adult) who has not heard of him. Is there any reason why Hitler should not be printed on money? The Germans clearly do not want him representing them, and he certainly is not an ideal character to strive towards, but in terms of historical significance he would certainly qualify.
On the topic of controversial people on money, I don't think Hitler has ever been minted on a coin but Paul von Hinderburg, who appointed him however reluctantly and played a significant part in the rise of Nazi Germany, has. Hungarian coins used to have Miklós Horthy - a person famous for passing anti-Jewish laws during the alliance with Nazi Germany. The Albanian 1 lek coin and the Greek 100 drachma coin used to have Alexander the Great on them, and that is a character certainly famous for bloodshed. The concept of war crimes most likely did not exist during his reign, but if it did we would judge him guilty of dozens. The Czechoslovakia 2 Koruna coin used to have Juraj Jánosík on it, and while there are numerous myths surrounding the man that probably explain his presence on the coin, in reality he was basically an outlaw and a highwayman. Russians used to have Lenin on their money, though that probably was an actual act of honor towards the character even if he was in multiple ways controversial.
Assuming that we make it for the next 2000 years, what are the chances of people thinking of Hitler the same way we think of Alexander the Great today? There are some striking similarities.
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
But the big historical difference is that Hitler lost the war and died in abject shame as his empire collapsed around him. Unlike Alexander and Genghis Khan, his future defenders will not be able to say, "At least he got this-and-that done", because the only one of his goals he actually accomplished was killing a lot of people he didn't like. The other long-term effects of World War II are all diametrically opposed to what Hitler wanted: the democratization of Germany, the expansion of Soviet communist influence in Europe, the establishment of a Jewish state... So even setting aside the moral dimension of his actions, as we do for many of these earlier warlords, the man was a complete failure as a leader.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Genghis Khan in contrast to both of these figures was highly successful. He created the largest empire on earth during his time, and the empire remained and even expanded further for a considerable amount of time after his death. He also adopted a new writing system and promoted religious freedom, while creating conditions that allowed silk road to function properly thus encouraging trade and spreading of ideas. Partly owning to it's sheer size his empire was one of the most culturally diverse and meritocratic ones in the world. All these feats despite coming from a homeless family, unlike Alexander who was born into royalty. He might be the poster-boy for rags-to-riches success.
It might be a case of cultural bias, but at least in Finland Genghis Khan is pictured in a much more positive light than Alexander, and both in significantly better light than Hitler.
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
Nnnno. The Nazi reputation for industry was largely a front projected by their propaganda machine. Their economy was a corrupt shambles (look at what Oskar Schindler was able to do). They reached full employment during the prewar buildup, but real wages fell by a quarter. Their war machine was built on massive debt and the confiscated wealth of Jews.
The Persian Empire would like a word. Lasted for over two centuries, and at its peak, ruled an estimated 44% of the entire world population. There was a reason Alexander was trying to adopt Persian administrative customs, however it may have baffled his generals. I'm not saying he definitely would have built a stable empire had he not died unexpectedly... but he did die unexpectedly, which destroyed his plans whatever they may have been.
God knows I'm not denying his success. If history had a leaderboard his initials would be right at the top. But one does not create an empire of that size without building a few pyramids of human skulls. And unlike with Alexander, most of the histories of the Mongol conquests were written down by the people they were conquering - The Secret History of the Mongols didn't enter mainstream scholarship until the 20th Century. So Genghis Khan tends to play a villainous role in popular history. It's interesting that you report the revisionist interpretation has become dominant in Finland.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The mongol population of China is nearly double that of the population of state of Mongolia. They eat sorghum, carrots and turnips, farm cotton, and use the middle-eastern cartography system in China - all of which were introduced during Yuan dynasty. Europe can thank that trade made possible by Pax Mongolica for printing techniques, hydraulic engineering, purified saltpetre, porcelain, and a significant part of medical literature. This was also the first time China got a widespread system of granaries. One could argue that the impacts of these advancements, particularly the introduction of sorghum to China and purified saltpetre and printing techniques to Europe were very significant. I would argue that they were more significant than spreading a language.
And the Macedonian war machine was built on the Macedonian phalanx and the sarissa, developed by Philip II.
Germany recovered from the great depression very effectively compared to other European countries. It used a number of practices that were not necessarily desirable by the public, such as forced labour of 'undesirables' and lowering of the wages alongside the average standard of living, but it sure was efficient. In a country hit really hard by the great depression, debt/GNP remained relatively stable from 1932 to 1938, while money/gnp ratio decreased. Many of the signs go against the Keynesian interpretation of high deficit spending, despite significant public demand expansion (Ritschl 2000).
Ritschl, Albrecht. (2000). Deficit Spending in the Nazi Recovery, 1933-1938: A Critical Reassessment, University of Zurich
Thus massive debt is definitely an overstatement, as it did not skyrocket until during the World War 2. The accounts of ~342 million RM gathered from Reich Flight Tax during 1938 and less earlier also do not make up a significant part of the economy, considering that in 1938 the government spending was 24 billion RM. Even the single largest confiscation of 1938 following the Kristallnacht was only roughly one billion - which was significant but not enough to be an explaining cause. While rebound-effect is in part an explaining factor, it does not explain the size of the growth. The forced insistence on low wages has been suggested as an explanation for the economic growth, but there isn't sufficient analysis to demonstrate that to be true.
Duly noted. Although it seems that many of the policies Alexander was attempting to adopt were not necessarily the most efficient ones, as it could be argued that Persian empire was successful owing to the relatively autonomous nature of the territories. The Persian empire also struggled with numerous insurgencies, which would suggest that they were not quite as efficient as they could have been. Furthermore the fact that Alexander did not begin building the empire while conquering already speaks volumes: By comparison Genghis Khan was relatively successful at doing both at the same time, perhaps as a result of granting high autonomy to his generals.
Genghis Khan has historically been rather popular and well-regarded character in Turkey, Kazakhstan, and of course Mongolia. Perhaps the euro-centric view of reports from Hungary and Poland, or the fact that he is widely despised in non-Turk middle-eastern countries is the explaining factor. Also: Few pyramids is clearly an underestimate, Genghis Khan clearly gathered enough skulls for at least 50 pyramids.
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
Whereas the Roman Empire, and all the other empires of history, were models of peace and stability?
I'm not personally familiar with the primary sources here, but my understanding is that the main sources on Genghis Khan and the Mongol conquests in the West were Islamic Persian histories. I expect on the other side of the continent the Chinese historians had a few things to say as well. Contrast Alexander, where the main sources were Greek histories. So mainstream historical discourse for many centuries was hero worship of Alexander and vilification of Genghis Khan. Now, Hitler's legacy, because everything written about him in the immediate aftermath of his life has been (to say the least) unsympathetic, is more likely to follow the model of Genghis Khan than Alexander.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Unless it's to, "remind people of horrible stuff your country did in recent history and wildly offend people" - then putting Hitler on government money is a pretty bad idea.
Andrew Jackson was a genocidal, corrupt freakshow too - but most people seem not to be aware of this. Ironically, taking him OFF the currency would just call more attention to the embarrassing chapter in America's history. Also, because he's been on the currency for a while now, people today can say when the topic is brought up that THEY wouldn't be in favor of endorsing him, that no one's okay with genocide, and so the current generation isn't endorsing the guy - the presence on the currency is just a piece of history. Iffy argument, but it allows people to skirt direct blame. Meanwhile, if anyone directly decided today to put Hitler on a bill then that person would have a lot of explaining to do.
Also, I'm not sure I want America's bloody past swept under the rug. I kind of appreciate the reminder whenever the manifest destiny gets popular.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
I figure removing Lincoln or Grant would encourage neo-Confederates.
Lincoln has the penny and the $5, but the penny might go eventually. Similar for Washington having the paper dollar as well as the quarter.
Nothing in particular against Hamilton or Franklin.
So if someone else was to be put on a bill, Jackson would be the one to go. Not sure who else I would pick - female, nonwhite, or both.
Vintage: Dredge | Legacy: Burn, Goblins, Soldier | Standard: Mono-Red Aggro
Commander: Nicol Bolas, Sliver Overlord, Rafiq
Casual: Selesnya Saproling Smackdown, Izzet Labs, Rebel
Played since June 2004, mostly inactive June 2011 to March 2018
Other usernames include AlanFromRochester, homerthebeerbaron
MTG checklists from Alpha to Ravnica Allegiance - https://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/magic-fundamentals/other-magic-products/third-party-products/805324-checklists-for-everything-from-alpha-to-ravnica
From what I gather we were having a debate about the ideological premises of coin minting and bill printing, though I admit that we have been sidetracked so far from the topic that everything in the past few posts is primarily insignificant. My main point was that the spread of a language really is not a good yardstick for cultural influence, though I admit I should have been more clear about that.
Also: Claiming that the transmission 'utterly failed to happen' is unfortunately not entirely accurate - though you are undeniably correct regarding the extent. And yes, you are right about Hitler losing the war.
Oh come on, it's not like the ancient Greeks did not build their standard of living and considerably higher life expectancy by delegating physical labour to slaves. Or for a more recent example, Mao Zedong's reign was a horror story with few competitors. All I'm saying that if your goal was to arm a nation and establish functional infrastructure and industry, Nazi Germany was highly successful. Of course, if your goal is to establish better equality, happiness, free market and peace, Nazi Germany was highly unsuccessful. I do get the impression that Hitler was not a big fan of the latter group. In other words, I am arguing that Hitler was successful in at least one of his goals; however misguided that goal might have been.
I would also argue that he had good propaganda and oratory skills, considering that he was able to get into the position to do the things he did - I admit that it could be argued that the seeds of racially motivated violence and lebensraum thinking were there even before him, but even then he successfully rode those things into a position of unquestionable power. If he was a complete and utter failure as a character, he would have never had the opportunity to fail on such a grand scale as he did.
As far as I understand there have been some debate regarding the internal struggles of Achaemenid empire, which may or may not have led to inevitable collapse. Though apparently there are modern scholars refute that. This is an area where I really am not well read enough to make informed claims. Either way, if Achaemenid empire was indeed successful and stable as some of the modern scholars suggest, that would only speak against Alexander for being unable to attain the same. I believe that it is safe to say that if something made the Achaemenid empire successful, it was not proskynesis.
I'm not personally familiar with the primary sources here, but my understanding is that the main sources on Genghis Khan and the Mongol conquests in the West were Islamic Persian histories. I expect on the other side of the continent the Chinese historians had a few things to say as well. Contrast Alexander, where the main sources were Greek histories. So mainstream historical discourse for many centuries was hero worship of Alexander and vilification of Genghis Khan. Now, Hitler's legacy, because everything written about him in the immediate aftermath of his life has been (to say the least) unsympathetic, is more likely to follow the model of Genghis Khan than Alexander.[/quote]
Islamic Persian histories would explain it, considering how negatively he is viewed there. The viewpoint of the Chinese is highly mixed from what I understand. I would agree you on the close history, but note that Genghis Khan is seeing a redemption only 800 years after his death - so by your argument following this model there could very well be a more positive outlook on Hitler in 2000 years (Indeed, it really only takes one of those neo-nazi parties getting into power.) Of course, it is probably fair to say in light of this conversation that Hitler has a lower chance of redemption than Genghis Khan did, barring significant changes in the political environment.
Good question, and I really do not know. It seems that the most claims regarding this rely on negation, of what it isn't, and what kind of characters should not be on the money.
Is the key here recent history? Or is the key here political correctness over accurate representation of history? Perhaps the goal is simply "remind people of stuff your country did in history", paying no attention to whether or not that is grand or terrible.
You seem to be holding two sort-of-contradictory viewpoints here - and further your latter stance could be used to argue for minting of Hitler on a coin. You know, just in case lebensraum gets popular.
Further, I fail to see what part of history is embarrassing - or how History can be embarrassing to begin with, unless you attempt to validate yourself with actions of others or the past. I really can't see how something that happened before your birth could be held against you, or for you for that matter.
The question was not will Hitler be on a bill, but rather should he - in which case we would need to answer the question you outlined in the first sentence of your post.
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
And yes, people do take pride and shame in the history of their nation, whether you think that's rational or not.
I don't have to articulate what the purpose of putting a figure on government money is, or taking one off. I'm pointing out the likely results such an action would have vs. continuing the status quo. If those results sound good to you, or meet a hypothetical goal, it should be done. If not, it shouldn't. I personally don't believe, based on Germany's history of trying to distance itself from the holocaust, that their goals mesh with the results of putting hitler on government currency.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
Fair enough, although it could be argued that significant enough press coverage would in turn influence the contents of school history books and as such raise awareness.
But should we actively conform to, and encourage such irrational behaviour?
So you are arguing from the utilitarian perspective, and the goal is therefore to maximize the utility for the Germans - or perhaps from the perspective of state consequentialism or preference utilitarianism. My viewpoint is primarily from the side of intellectualism and thus choosing the action that maximizes knowledge. As you can see, you still cannot dodge the questions of ideology here - you can merely adopt a certain stance, though in this case you have worded your stance so vaguely that it could fall under more than one axiologies of consequentialism.
Furthermore you seem to be promoting intellectualism in the case of Andrew Jackson and state consequentialism/utilitarianism/preference utilitarianism in the case of Hitler.
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
Hence why I said I'm unsure on that issue.
That's backwards. When setting policy you're looking at the results your action will cause. You can complain the reactions aren't going to be rational, but they're still going to exist.
Besides, ignoring how people respond to symbolism when dealing with a purely symbolic issue isn't very sound.
Trying to meld my position into those broader topics muddies things significantly, which is probably why you're having the issues you state. It brings a lot of baggage.
I'm simply stating what I believe to be the likely result of putting Hitler on government currency. Then I'm suggesting that if you find that result undesirable, you shouldn't do it. I've also stated that, based on Germany's recent history of trying to distance themselves from the holocaust, I believe the government would find that result undesirable.
It's the same as this:
"Should Barry try jumping out a ten story window?"
"If he does, he's going to fall and die. Unless he wants that to happen, it's a bad idea."
Do you have an issue with these two sentences?
Nope. I have made statements on what I believe to be the likely result of both decisions. I have not endorsed either regarding Jackson.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
You're looking at the results of your actions, I.E: Consequences. Which is consequentialism. Let me quote Wikipedia for you:
And I agree on this topic, I simply do not agree on the axiology. In other words, I am completely fine offending a lot of people or causing waves if it means improvement in the spread of knowledge.
I find it more than slightly patronizing that simply because I view your stance to be contradictory you assume I have issues.
Furthermore, your claim to not fall under these broader topics is amusing, considering you basically defined consequentialism there. Simply because you do not acknowledge the ideological biases of your stance does not mean they are not present. I have also repeatedly demonstrated that any argument or debate on the topic that ignores the broader ideological frameworks, within which it inevitably will take place, will be incomplete and mostly formed out of unsubstantiated opinions. This is simply because we cannot assume that an action has only single outcome, or that there is only one party with interests regarding that outcome.
You are stating what you believe to be one of the likely results (Or then you assume there is simply one result.) - and your bias towards certain kinds of results rather than others implies that your form of consequentialism is one of the three I outlined earlier. In other words, you are ignoring a large amount of potential outcomes and either assuming that they are trivial, or at the very least not as important as the ones you noted.
First of all, the question was whether or not Hitler should be on the Euro coin rather than whether or not it is in certain party's interests to mint him on the coin - which is fundamentally different since the former needs to consider interests of multiple parties rather than just one. (Even then, "Germany" is a rather broad group with diverse views.)
Second of all, your form of reasoning can be used to argue that any action that has negative consequences should not be done, even if it does have positive consequences.
Third of all, this is an appeal on probability - and one without any supporting cases to back up the assumption that a certain outcome is even likely.
Multiple issues, in fact. They are a crass oversimplification of the situation and they completely and utterly ignore the context of the situation - which in fact has never been outlined anywhere. Context, especially in a case such as this, is rather important. This is the equivalent of physics question assuming that everything moves at the speed of light and in perfect vacuum. Furthermore it is a ridiculously weak analogy that bears very little to no similarity to the present case, it has low relevance and there are very few cases that would give rise to it. Even if I were to accept it at face value, paying no heed to the possibility that Barry could survive or that there would be other consequences:
"If you jump out of a window you will die."
"If you mint Hitler on a coin people will get mad."
The dissimilarities are striking. One of the consequences involves one person, other one involves a lot of persons. It is also unclear what kind of people will get mad, whereas the analogy has a clear result of Barry being the one dying. It also does not invalidate the fact that there can be other consequences, which might easily be more important than the one you outlined - especially in the second case. It is also notable that other persons might have interests in Barry jumping out of the window and dying, and you completely fail to consider them - implying some sympathy towards the stance of ethical egoism by implying that Barry should do what is in his interests.
First of all, you need not take a stance when the ideology is clearly present in what you assume to be the likely results or at least the most important results.
Second of all, claiming certain results that are obviously negative to be likely you are taking a stance. Your claim here is roughly the equivalent of saying "All the results of minting Hitler on a coin can be construed as negative, but I do not have a stance about minting Hitler on a coin." Your stance is strongly implied in your argument, and you are merely shifting responsibility for holding the stance away from yourself.
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
Your mistake here is the assumption of the discussion of morality. Consequentialism brings in a lot of ethical and moral baggage. I’m talking about simple, practical analysis. The reason for Barry not jumping out a window in the context of my example, isn’t an ethical issue. It’s a gravity issue.
You said you were having trouble fitting my stance into just one of the axiologies of consequentialism. That is the “issue” I was referring to. You can believe I’m the one causing the difficulty, but it isn’t patronizing to reference the difficulty you yourself brought up.
Because it’s not necessary to fit a simple issue of a practical decision into a system of thought designed for talking about ethics and morality. Focus on refuting my specific argument and it’ll be easier on all of us. If you think a counter-argument inspired by ethical discussions of consequentialism applies here, go for it. Just refute my specific argument.
It’s present only in the loosest possible sense.
“Should I look both ways before I cross the street?”
“If you don’t, you’ll run a higher risk of getting run over. I assume you don’t want to get run over, so you probably want to look both ways.”
What ideology is at work here? I’m not even advocating a position on my own. I’m simply laying out the likely result of a decision and making an informed assumption of what that person’s priorities are. I have not even specifically endorsed those priorities.
This is why trying to wind things around to consequentionalism is a red herring. It’s bringing a bunch of baggage beyond the boundaries of what I’m talking about.
We both know it's not practical to list every possible consequence of a given action. If you believe I've overlooked or undervalued an important factor, we can talk about that. If not, we don't have to bother.
Either way, there's no point to this complaint. I could easily poke at your argument and bring up a bunch of potential consequences you havnen't explicitly stated considering in your argument. For example, I don't believe you've stated your analysis of how additional media coverage of a well-known figure like Hitler might edge out coverage of less well-known subjects... Thus possibly hurting the spread of certain knowledge. In other words, you are ignoring a large amount of potential outcomes and either assuming hat they are trivial or at the very least not as important as the ones you noted.
I was talking about Hitler in regards to German currency because it’s a more direct parallel to Jackson on American currency. The euro is a less direct analogy.
Then it can also be used to argue that elvis is alive. After all, I never specifically say that elvis isn’t alive do I? Just as I never specifically say that you should weigh positive results against negative ones. As long as you’re making wild generalizations based on what I’m not saying, why not bring elvis in too?
You really need to stop trying to fit everything said into model-shaped holes. Really, someone can’t even use the words “I think this is the most likely outcome…” Without you trying to claim an appeal to probability?
It seems that we might be able to get anywhere. I was giving the sniper example as an indication of absurdity earlier, but it seems that you’d want that possibility drawn up and submitted in triplicate along with all the others.
Next time you decide to add salt to your popcorn, pause and consider how you managed to do it without 30 minutes of chemical analysis.
I think this conversation will be more productive if we start approaching it like this:
“Putting Hitler on german currency would cause a lot of negative results that the people in charge probably wouldn’t like.”
“Like what?”
“It would offend a lot of people and make them furious at the officials, which the officials probably don’t want. Also, German oficials are trying very hard to distance themselves from Hitler - so this would go against their goals.”
“I think you’re not factoring in all the results.”
“Oh? Like what?”
“It would certainly raise awareness of Hitler, for one thing, and that’s not a lesson we want to forget anytime soon. I think that benefit outweighs offending people.”
See? Then we can have a conversation.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane