[net.politics] as cruel as nature

colonel@gloria.UUCP (Col. G. L. Sicherman) (03/03/85)

> "Why shouldn't human beings be as cruel as nature is?"
> 
>                               - Adolf Hitler
> 
> Anyone want to try and explain it.  Of course we know religion is bosh and
> unscientific and unrational so can the Uzibsmo says stuff.  I mean just
> why should humans be DIFFERENT than other things in nature?

According to good old General Semantics, any sentence with "should" in
it is an encoded form of a sentence with "I want!" in it.  Hitler's
statement translates to:

	"I want to be cruel!  I want EVERYBODY to be cruel!"

And he succeeded rather well!

	The idea that nature is "cruel" was advanced by the German
pessimists, and before them by philosophers like Hobbes.  It strikes
me as peevish; but I can understand how it appealed to cruel men like
Hitler.  A professional sage might have asked instead:

	"Why shouldn't human beings be as gentle as nature is?"

In any case, since I read net.kids regularly, I don't believe that
Ken Arndt wants to be cruel, so the point is moot.  (Good thing I
don't read net.flame regularly!)
-- 
Col. G. L. Sicherman
...decvax!sunybcs!gloria!colonel

notes@ucf-cs.UUCP (03/22/85)

Hitler & Fascists are wrong in thus categorizing nature.
No species except Fascists advocate the killing of their
own species on the basis of race colour etc.
While animals are territorial etc their territorial conflicts
occur on an individual basis eg tigers, stags  etc.
A pride of lions and other predators kill for food
not out of  a sense of ridding the world of undesirable 
races breeds etc because they are of a different political viewpoint
colour or culture.   This crime belongs in the present era
to Fascism.