How about reaping the benefits from others doing these things ?
E.g. - would you buy stuff produced by slaves not owned by you ?
Advertisement
by The Alma Mater » Mon Nov 20, 2017 9:49 am
by Krasny-Volny » Mon Nov 20, 2017 11:11 am
by Yagon » Mon Nov 20, 2017 11:44 am
Krasny-Volny wrote:I would certainly compromise my political or social ideologies to survive, as I don't really consider myself an ideologue anyway.
I would not compromise my religion.
My family actually lived through a very similar situation being described in the OP during WWII. They were an ethnic minority in a country overrun by the fascists. The fascists thought everybody in that minority was a communist or a collaborator with the communists, so they started murdering them in large numbers.
Now the main differentiation between groups in that country was language and religion. It was possible to pass yourself off as a member of another ethnic group if you wanted to and I'm sure some people tried. But my family did not trust members of other ethnic groups, especially the dominant majority which had controlled the nation prior to the fascists. So they fled out into the wilderness and hid there for four years until the war ended.
More than likely I would attempt the same thing. I'm aware that the OP says my chances are almost nil, but since it's been done before - by relatives I have that are still living - I would be of the mindset that it could be done again without having to put yourself at the mercy of another ethnic group (in this tribalist situation).
by Krasny-Volny » Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:12 pm
Yagon wrote:Krasny-Volny wrote:I would certainly compromise my political or social ideologies to survive, as I don't really consider myself an ideologue anyway.
I would not compromise my religion.
My family actually lived through a very similar situation being described in the OP during WWII. They were an ethnic minority in a country overrun by the fascists. The fascists thought everybody in that minority was a communist or a collaborator with the communists, so they started murdering them in large numbers.
Now the main differentiation between groups in that country was language and religion. It was possible to pass yourself off as a member of another ethnic group if you wanted to and I'm sure some people tried. But my family did not trust members of other ethnic groups, especially the dominant majority which had controlled the nation prior to the fascists. So they fled out into the wilderness and hid there for four years until the war ended.
More than likely I would attempt the same thing. I'm aware that the OP says my chances are almost nil, but since it's been done before - by relatives I have that are still living - I would be of the mindset that it could be done again without having to put yourself at the mercy of another ethnic group (in this tribalist situation).
The chances were set at nil just for purposes of the thought exercise (meaning to examine if one would risk one's life substantially rather than capitulate).
I find it reasonable (and likely with ample historical example) that people could find a way to survive or flee; the OP was merely to test those scenarios in which it came down to compromising or likely dying.
So if for some reason there were no means to flee, and it was your religion they wanted you to compromise, you would rather die?
by Yagon » Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:18 pm
Krasny-Volny wrote:Yagon wrote:
The chances were set at nil just for purposes of the thought exercise (meaning to examine if one would risk one's life substantially rather than capitulate).
I find it reasonable (and likely with ample historical example) that people could find a way to survive or flee; the OP was merely to test those scenarios in which it came down to compromising or likely dying.
So if for some reason there were no means to flee, and it was your religion they wanted you to compromise, you would rather die?
For the purposes of this mutually exclusive thought exercise (assuming practicing one's religion in secret while outwardly embracing another is not an option) yes, I'd rather die a proverbial Moor than live as a Morisco.
by Krasny-Volny » Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:43 pm
Yagon wrote:Krasny-Volny wrote:
For the purposes of this mutually exclusive thought exercise (assuming practicing one's religion in secret while outwardly embracing another is not an option) yes, I'd rather die a proverbial Moor than live as a Morisco.
The idea of feigning the religion was presented as an option and was discussed at other places in the thread.
I apologize for not understanding how the thought exercise is mutually exlusive, please help me understand better. (I'm not very smart, I have diagnosed cognitive difficulties, I'm acknowledging up front that you are smarter than me, without sarcasm).
The thought exercise was to isolate an instance where it was compromise or likely die. Help me understand better where its mutually exclusive. (I acknowledge in several instances there have been sub-branches of the exercise where various alternative instances have been put forward and explored, I'm honestly sorry if that has resulted in contradiction across sub-branches).
Could a non-mutually exclusive thought exercise be constructed to examine whether someone would compromise a particular thing rather than die?
by Yagon » Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:52 pm
Krasny-Volny wrote:Yagon wrote:
The idea of feigning the religion was presented as an option and was discussed at other places in the thread.
I apologize for not understanding how the thought exercise is mutually exlusive, please help me understand better. (I'm not very smart, I have diagnosed cognitive difficulties, I'm acknowledging up front that you are smarter than me, without sarcasm).
The thought exercise was to isolate an instance where it was compromise or likely die. Help me understand better where its mutually exclusive. (I acknowledge in several instances there have been sub-branches of the exercise where various alternative instances have been put forward and explored, I'm honestly sorry if that has resulted in contradiction across sub-branches).
Could a non-mutually exclusive thought exercise be constructed to examine whether someone would compromise a particular thing rather than die?
This thought exercise is mutually exclusive because its two options are mutually exclusive. You must pick one. You cannot derive a third option or propose some combination of both.
Maybe I'm speaking from the perspective of an ESL instructor here rather than a law or an ethics instructor (law schools are where I see these exercises the most), but I believe mutual exclusivity is inflexible and stifles critical thinking. I would've never presented a hypothetical to any of my students...not that this is the sort of thing my curriculum ever covered in the first place.
A non-mutually exclusive thought exercise would encourage the participants to realistically propose third options, support some combination of the two existing options (ie remaining a crypto adherent of their own faith, as I mentioned above) and explain why, etc.
by Romanum Dominium » Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:18 pm
by Yagon » Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:22 pm
Romanum Dominium wrote:I suppose this depends on how repugnant I find the new ideology as well as how gruesome my death would be. I would almost definitely refuse to convert to a new religion if refusal means getting shot or stabbed but I'd agree to damn near anything to avoid being burned as a heretic. I wouldn't compromise with a Stalinist or Nazi government, but would probably submit to a run-of-the-mill dictator.
by Democratic Communist Federation » Mon Nov 20, 2017 4:39 pm
Bardarus wrote:No, not really, they're all Christian Churches but in the Middle East like Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy are Christian Churches in Europe.
[color=#ff0000]Member,[/color] [url=https://www.nationstates.net/nation=democratic_communist_federation/detail=factbook/id=870177][color=#ff0000][u]Antifa Dialectical metaRealism[/u][/color][/url]
by Corpus Magnus » Wed Nov 22, 2017 5:14 pm
by Senkaku » Wed Nov 22, 2017 5:23 pm
by Yagon » Thu Nov 23, 2017 12:59 pm
Senkaku wrote:See, if I'm dead, that precludes the possibility of me ever getting revenge on whoever's putting me in whatever awful position. And if they're making me compromise my core beliefs or die, then I'd probably like to be able to turn the tables on them at some point. I wouldn't say that's an absolute, there probably are scenarios where I'd choose death instead, but death's finality is quite frustrating if you want to see some measure of justice against someone who's wronged you.
by Principality of the Raix » Thu Nov 23, 2017 1:21 pm
Yagon wrote:Senkaku wrote:See, if I'm dead, that precludes the possibility of me ever getting revenge on whoever's putting me in whatever awful position. And if they're making me compromise my core beliefs or die, then I'd probably like to be able to turn the tables on them at some point. I wouldn't say that's an absolute, there probably are scenarios where I'd choose death instead, but death's finality is quite frustrating if you want to see some measure of justice against someone who's wronged you.
I can see where payback could be a good motivator. Definitely worked for Mel Gibson where he gets revenge on that guy who fucked him over for $70,000. I forget what it was called.
by Corpus Magnus » Fri Dec 08, 2017 1:49 pm
by The Sauganash Union » Sat Dec 09, 2017 11:27 am
by Zottistan » Sat Dec 09, 2017 12:26 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Baltinica, Cerespasia, Congo-Kinsasa, Fractalnavel, Gaybeans, Turenia, Urmanian
Advertisement