Austria to tear down Hitler birth house

Gamers can also use this forum to chat about any game related subject, news, rumours etc.

Moderator: maddog986

User avatar
Jim D Burns
Posts: 4001
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 6:00 pm
Location: Salida, CA.

RE: Austria to tear down Hitler birth house

Post by Jim D Burns »

ORIGINAL: Orm

So did the Donner Party members kill anyone in order to eat that corpse? I always thought they might have eaten the already dead. Makes a difference.

Lewis Keseberg was thought to have probably killed Tamsen Donner and possibly others but it was never proven.

But to be fair to the man it is also very possible he was maligned by a crooked newspaper and the accounts of the 4th relief are simply fiction:

https://www.geni.com/people/Louis-Keseb ... 8434299950

Either way the man has to have lived one of the most miserable lives ever lived, here's a quote from the linked article:
In any case, Louis Keseberg’s story is a sad one. Despite being apparently well-educated, his life seems to have been one tragedy after another. The Donner Party tragedy took both his children (he had already lost another child prior to 1846), and left him with the reputation of being a thief, liar, murderer, and mindless cannibal. Afterwards, he had eight more children; all but one predeceased him (the last lived to the age of ninety, dying in the late 1940’s). Two of these children were evidently mentally handicapped. He outlived his wife by nearly twenty years. In every new business venture he started, he was vilified and treated as a laughingstock. After serving as the skipper of one of John Sutter’s river supply boats for several years, he was said to have lost his job because the passengers feared he would kill and eat them while they slept. One passenger, in what is no doubt a much more honest account, said that during the night he could hear Keseberg crying out in nightmares. When Keseberg purchased a small hotel in Sacramento, jokes abounded about the dangers of boarding in his rooms. The hotel burned down about a year later. Sometime afterward, he bought a brewery – it was destroyed after several years by a flood. By the time Keseberg died in the late 1890’s, he was penniless and apparently homeless, dying in a hospital for the poor.

Jim
User avatar
MakeeLearn
Posts: 4274
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 1:01 pm

RE: Austria to tear down Hitler birth house

Post by MakeeLearn »

ORIGINAL: Orm

So did the Donner Party members kill anyone in order to eat that corpse? I always thought they might have eaten the already dead. Makes a difference.


It was admitted that the 2 Indian guides were killed for food. A chance others were too, or just left to die then eaten. There had been fights even before the snows even came.

Reads like a group of people that lacked integrity even in the best of times.






User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 15050
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

RE: Austria to tear down Hitler birth house

Post by Curtis Lemay »

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress




Why would you shoot him if he was doing a moral act? Wouldn't it be immoral of you to impede his survival if (presumably) all he wants is to come into your house and get some food but not harm you or your family?

No. We would each be morally pursuing our own survival. This, of course, assumes that we are in some circumstance similar to the Donner Party.

But suppose he's simply there to get a little of your food and not harm you, then it wouldn't be a matter of survival for you, only him.

Chickenboy has already expressed a drooling admiration for my excellent marbling. So I have no way of knowing whether he merely intends to raid the pantry or has descended into zombnebulism and is on a slobbery cannibalistic rampage. And, in either case, my carpet would be subject to extensive slobbering damage.

Note that my actions (defending my home) would be moralistic in either case, while his would only be so in the asteroid-type situation, since society has safety nets against starvation that he could have availed in normal circumstances (regardless of his drool-crazed cannibalistic inclinations).
Second point, how does the "Donner party" example apply to the morality of the past. I mean it's not like the plantation owners were about to starve and needed slaves to feed them. They presumably could have worked the soil themselves on small farms like the majority of their peers. It wasn't a matter of brute survival in most cases was it?

The Donner Party is the extreme case that makes the point clear. But most other times have been far closer to the survival edge that our luxurious current situation. Most 19th Century Americans did live closer to that edge, being in, basically, a wilderness before the age of miracle drugs, pacified savages, and CSI labs. We are all charged by nature with the survival task. In certain conditions slavery, genocide, and even cannibalism are valid survival strategies.
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 15050
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

RE: Austria to tear down Hitler birth house

Post by Curtis Lemay »

ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn
ORIGINAL: Orm

So did the Donner Party members kill anyone in order to eat that corpse? I always thought they might have eaten the already dead. Makes a difference.


It was admitted that the 2 Indian guides were killed for food. A chance others were too, or just left to die then eaten. There had been fights even before the snows even came.

Reads like a group of people that lacked integrity even in the best of times.

Let's be clear: You can only eat the dead after someone has died of starvation. That first one to so die could have only survived by killing one of the others. And after he was eaten, the same issue would arrive again.
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
GaryChildress
Posts: 6933
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 3:41 pm
Location: The Divided Nations of Earth

RE: Austria to tear down Hitler birth house

Post by GaryChildress »

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn
ORIGINAL: Orm

So did the Donner Party members kill anyone in order to eat that corpse? I always thought they might have eaten the already dead. Makes a difference.


It was admitted that the 2 Indian guides were killed for food. A chance others were too, or just left to die then eaten. There had been fights even before the snows even came.

Reads like a group of people that lacked integrity even in the best of times.

Let's be clear: You can only eat the dead after someone has died of starvation.

So you don't believe that people are allowed to murder each other for food, then? That's reassuring and the point I made at the very beginning which you have been arguing against.
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 15050
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

RE: Austria to tear down Hitler birth house

Post by Curtis Lemay »

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn




It was admitted that the 2 Indian guides were killed for food. A chance others were too, or just left to die then eaten. There had been fights even before the snows even came.

Reads like a group of people that lacked integrity even in the best of times.

Let's be clear: You can only eat the dead after someone has died of starvation.

So you don't believe that people are allowed to murder each other for food, then? That's reassuring and the point I made at the very beginning which you have been arguing against.

No. You took that out of context, but let me rephrase it: You can only eat the dead after someone has died of starvation - unless you kill them. So, to survive, at least some of the Donner Party would have had to have resorted to murder.
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
User avatar
MakeeLearn
Posts: 4274
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 1:01 pm

RE: Austria to tear down Hitler birth house

Post by MakeeLearn »

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn
ORIGINAL: Orm

So did the Donner Party members kill anyone in order to eat that corpse? I always thought they might have eaten the already dead. Makes a difference.


It was admitted that the 2 Indian guides were killed for food. A chance others were too, or just left to die then eaten. There had been fights even before the snows even came.

Reads like a group of people that lacked integrity even in the best of times.

Let's be clear: You can only eat the dead after someone has died of starvation. That first one to so die could have only survived by killing one of the others. And after he was eaten, the same issue would arrive again.



"Spitzer died, then Baylis Williams (a driver for the Reeds), more from malnutrition than starvation"

I meant from the point instead pulling together and helping others the party fell apart and ate the ones that could not make it, or may have killed them and then ate them. Who knows the carving may have happen while the food was still moving.



Party Time!!! All invited to Donner party at Hitler house.






User avatar
Orm
Posts: 31827
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 7:53 pm
Location: Sweden

RE: Austria to tear down Hitler birth house

Post by Orm »



Can we now move this thread back towards the original topic? Please?
Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

A government is a body of people; usually, notably, ungoverned. - Quote from Firefly
User avatar
TulliusDetritus
Posts: 5581
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:49 am
Location: The Zone™

RE: Austria to tear down Hitler birth house

Post by TulliusDetritus »

ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn
Party Time!!! All invited to Donner party at Hitler house.



Please, could you all sort of avoid the super-mega-monster quotes? Normally one sentence should suffice, like my quote above.

Thanks
"Hitler is a horrible sexual degenerate, a dangerous fool" - Mussolini, circa 1934
User avatar
Orm
Posts: 31827
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 7:53 pm
Location: Sweden

RE: Austria to tear down Hitler birth house

Post by Orm »

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns
ORIGINAL: PipFromSlitherine
I would think you would want to choose a better example than the desire to remove a celebratory statue (a statue which has, itself, no historical value) of an unrepentant (and inarguable) racist.

By this logic then you would have to condone what recently happened in Syria when ISIS killed the man who refused to tell them where the ancient artifacts were hidden in Palmyra (I think that was the city name, though I could be wrong) and they then proceeded to destroy anything they could find tied to ancient history in the city. After all they are the ones in power and their judgment about what history is and isn't appropriate should be accepted correct?

You don't get to justify an evil act as good just because you happen to agree with the people in power at the time. Anyone who tries to erase history for any reason is committing an evil act. It's an attempt to control the knowledge and judgment of the masses and is in league with the eugenicists line of thinking from the early 1900's. They believed they could mold peoples thoughts and desires if people simply submitted to their control and directives. And those who failed to submit should be incarcerated or killed.

It's not as blatant today, as they would be condemned were their true thoughts revealed. So instead they advocate changing history and controlling thought through shaming tactics. If you defend anything they oppose you're labeled a racist or sexist or whatever ist fits their agenda. It's still an attempt to control the masses and camouflages itself by wrapping itself in social justice/feminist colors.

If you really want some stark examples of how bad its gotten recently, go to youtube and listen to what some of the anti-feminists who used to be a part of the original feminist movement have to say.

This professor is a good example of someone screaming into the wind to try and warn people about the sickness that has taken hold on western campuses:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XD65wnD ... kOChBKDIaw

This little event surrounding the tearing down of Hitler's birth place is a relatively minor issue, but it is a part of a much larger agenda that has grown exponentially over the past 8-10 years and is becoming a tidal wave of mass insanity.

The first video in her series I linked above shows its not hyperbole, she actually has video of young men forced to stand up and apologize for being white and being male before they are allowed to even speak in public. And for some insane reason this is accepted as normal and ok on campuses all across the west today.

Jim
I listened to a couple of the videos. It gave me something to ponder on. Thank you for directing me to it.
Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

A government is a body of people; usually, notably, ungoverned. - Quote from Firefly
GaryChildress
Posts: 6933
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 3:41 pm
Location: The Divided Nations of Earth

RE: Austria to tear down Hitler birth house

Post by GaryChildress »

Deleted. No use beating a dead horse I guess. (No pun intended on the cannibalism debate)
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 15050
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

RE: Austria to tear down Hitler birth house

Post by Curtis Lemay »

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress




So you don't believe that people are allowed to murder each other for food, then? That's reassuring and the point I made at the very beginning which you have been arguing against.

No. You took that out of context, but let me rephrase it: You can only eat the dead after someone has died of starvation - unless you kill them. So, to survive, at least some of the Donner Party would have had to have resorted to murder.

Then I still disagree with you and so do many courts in the civilized world.

And your position remains that the survivors of the Donner Party were immoral for not starving to death. [X(][X(][X(]
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
User avatar
Zap
Posts: 3629
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 7:13 am
Location: LAS VEGAS TAKE A CHANCE

RE: Austria to tear down Hitler birth house

Post by Zap »

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress




So you don't believe that people are allowed to murder each other for food, then? That's reassuring and the point I made at the very beginning which you have been arguing against.

No. You took that out of context, but let me rephrase it: You can only eat the dead after someone has died of starvation - unless you kill them. So, to survive, at least some of the Donner Party would have had to have resorted to murder.

Then I still disagree with you and so do many courts in the civilized world.


My observation is , in the case of the Donner Party, no one was convicted so for me no wrong doing was done in the eyes of the law and court.
GaryChildress
Posts: 6933
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 3:41 pm
Location: The Divided Nations of Earth

RE: Austria to tear down Hitler birth house

Post by GaryChildress »

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay




No. You took that out of context, but let me rephrase it: You can only eat the dead after someone has died of starvation - unless you kill them. So, to survive, at least some of the Donner Party would have had to have resorted to murder.

Then I still disagree with you and so do many courts in the civilized world.

And your position remains that the survivors of the Donner Party were immoral for not starving to death. [X(][X(][X(]

And you are endorsing murder for the purpose of cannibalism. Not sure which is worse. But the debate isn't going anywhere so I'm not going to pursue it further. Let's just agree to disagree.
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 15050
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

RE: Austria to tear down Hitler birth house

Post by Curtis Lemay »

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress
ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress




Then I still disagree with you and so do many courts in the civilized world.

And your position remains that the survivors of the Donner Party were immoral for not starving to death. [X(][X(][X(]

And you are endorsing murder for the purpose of cannibalism. Not sure which is worse. But the debate isn't going anywhere so I'm not going to pursue it further. Let's just agree to disagree.

It would only be murder in the sense of what a tiger commits when killing and eating an antelope - when under the Donner Party conditions. Once it becomes every man (or tiger) for himself, then the normal mores just don't apply anymore. Again: the conditions determine the morality.
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
GaryChildress
Posts: 6933
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 3:41 pm
Location: The Divided Nations of Earth

RE: Austria to tear down Hitler birth house

Post by GaryChildress »

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress
ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay




And your position remains that the survivors of the Donner Party were immoral for not starving to death. [X(][X(][X(]

And you are endorsing murder for the purpose of cannibalism. Not sure which is worse. But the debate isn't going anywhere so I'm not going to pursue it further. Let's just agree to disagree.

It would only be murder in the sense of what a tiger commits when killing and eating an antelope - when under the Donner Party conditions. Once it becomes every man (or tiger) for himself, then the normal mores just don't apply anymore. Again: the conditions determine the morality.

Then I'll rephrase it to say:

And you are endorsing killing other people for the purpose of cannibalism. Not sure which is worse. But the debate isn't going anywhere so I'm not going to pursue it further. Let's just agree to disagree.


User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 15050
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

RE: Austria to tear down Hitler birth house

Post by Curtis Lemay »

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress



And you are endorsing murder for the purpose of cannibalism. Not sure which is worse. But the debate isn't going anywhere so I'm not going to pursue it further. Let's just agree to disagree.

It would only be murder in the sense of what a tiger commits when killing and eating an antelope - when under the Donner Party conditions. Once it becomes every man (or tiger) for himself, then the normal mores just don't apply anymore. Again: the conditions determine the morality.

Then I'll rephrase it to say:

And you are endorsing killing other people for the purpose of cannibalism. Not sure which is worse. But the debate isn't going anywhere so I'm not going to pursue it further. Let's just agree to disagree.

Correct. People who would starve to death sans cannibalism can morally resort to cannibalism. Whatever moral agreements that may have been in place prior to those circumstances would become null and void for the duration of those circumstances. It isn't a close call which is worse. Dying for the sake of an absurd moral principle would be the act of an idiot. Survival regularly requires killing others in war or by security forces. This situation would not be fundamentally different.
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
GaryChildress
Posts: 6933
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 3:41 pm
Location: The Divided Nations of Earth

RE: Austria to tear down Hitler birth house

Post by GaryChildress »

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay




It would only be murder in the sense of what a tiger commits when killing and eating an antelope - when under the Donner Party conditions. Once it becomes every man (or tiger) for himself, then the normal mores just don't apply anymore. Again: the conditions determine the morality.

Then I'll rephrase it to say:

And you are endorsing killing other people for the purpose of cannibalism. Not sure which is worse. But the debate isn't going anywhere so I'm not going to pursue it further. Let's just agree to disagree.

Correct. People who would starve to death sans cannibalism can morally resort to cannibalism. Whatever moral agreements that may have been in place prior to those circumstances would become null and void for the duration of those circumstances. It isn't a close call which is worse. Dying for the sake of an absurd moral principle would be the act of an idiot. Survival regularly requires killing others in war or by security forces. This situation would not be fundamentally different.

Really? I would rather die than kill someone to eat them. If I were in a situation of starvation I think I would probably find a way to take my own life prematurely. Then everyone would be welcome to do what they wish with my body. But killing someone to eat them under any circumstance is just repugnant to me and not "moral". Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that "morality" is suspended or abrogated under such circumstances but it's hardly something I would call "moral". "Moral" is something I reserve for more noble behavior.
GaryChildress
Posts: 6933
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 3:41 pm
Location: The Divided Nations of Earth

RE: Austria to tear down Hitler birth house

Post by GaryChildress »

User avatar
Jim D Burns
Posts: 4001
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 6:00 pm
Location: Salida, CA.

RE: Austria to tear down Hitler birth house

Post by Jim D Burns »

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

Was this man an "idiot"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximilian_Kolbe


I say yes. If you're going to die at the hands of another, then fight back damn it. Being a passive victim is neither noble nor smart, it's pathetic. Only the victors make the rules and you can't win if you don't fight.

Jim
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”