| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
 Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2005 5:19 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Hater Depot wrote: |
| Am I reading this? Are we really sitting around discussing the relative meaningfulness and political justification of slaughtering an entire family, including children, without even the pretense of trial? |
This wasn't just "a family." |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Hater Depot
Joined: 29 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2005 5:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Murder is murder, political situation or not. Exile was an option. If someone had handed you a gun, would you have shot them? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2005 6:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| exile doesn't always work. Example #1: Napoleon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2005 8:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The "Vision of Washington in the winter of 1777 is one of the most fascinating of all American prophecies, and perhaps the best-known |
The whole thing sounds pretty phony to me. It wasn't published until 80 some years after his death. No proof he actually said any of that stuff. I didn't read the whole thing. No ring of authenticity to it. No explanation of how the guy got the story. I say BS. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2005 8:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hater Depot wrote: |
| If someone had handed you a gun, would you have shot them? |
No.
The point, however, is not what I would have done, or what was morally correct. The point of our discussion (and On the Other Hand, Kuros, and Bucheon Bum, correct me if I'm wrong) is what motivated Lenin and company to do it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rapier
Joined: 16 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2005 8:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hater Depot wrote: |
| Am I reading this? Are we really sitting around discussing the relative meaningfulness and political justification of slaughtering an entire family, including children, without even the pretense of trial? |
You should have seen them talking about the casual mass genocide of native women and children. Astounds me as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2005 10:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hater Depot wrote: |
| Am I reading this? Are we really sitting around discussing the relative meaningfulness and political justification of slaughtering an entire family, including children, without even the pretense of trial? |
Yes.
| Hater Depot wrote: |
| Murder is murder, political situation or not. Exile was an option. If someone had handed you a gun, would you have shot them? |
Exile was a poor option. Remember, this happened during WWI and the Romanovs were in some cases directly related to other royal families, including the British Crown. The Romanov children would have been exiled to that court, where they would have become real symbols of the injustice and also the vulnerability of the Bolshevik regime. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pligganease
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: The deep south...
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2005 11:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quit whining about killing the family...
Let's say you could prevent a war, where thousands of people would die, by killing one nun. Or better yet, ten nuns and 5 innocent schoolgirls.
I'd kill the nuns and the schoolgirls.
It was better to kill the family then than to have them gain support and start a civil war. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2005 12:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
It was better to kill the family then than to have them gain support and start a civil war.
|
But they were killed and there was a civil war anyway. Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette were killed and the heir disappeared. There was a restoration anyway, with someone in the same family, just slightly removed. Killing the Romanovs was not necessary unless all of them were killed.
The only thing this act shows is the moral bankruptcy of Lenin and his system. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2005 1:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Uncool? Sure. But also pragmatic and another step of securing long-term success.
OTOH, I think you're being a little short-sighted here, no offense.
|
None taken. And I agree with you that it COULD POSSIBLY have been the most pragmatic option, under the circumstances. But pargmatiic and ethical aren't neccesarily the same thing, unless we're working on a strictly utilitarian calculus. And on THAT note:
| Quote: |
| But they were killed and there was a civil war anyway. Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette were killed and the heir disappeared. There was a restoration anyway, with someone in the same family, just slightly removed. |
I think ya-ta boy's assesssment is basically correct here. Monarchists may seem to get all gushy about one particular personality or set of personalities, but their basic loyalty is to the institution. They're usually able to find some cousin, distant or otherwise, willing to take over the throne, and treat him just as if he were the son of the deposed.
If Lenin seriously thought that the anti-bolshevik forces would be fatally demoralized by the absence of a direct heir, I think he was naive. European powers traded monarchs around like baseball cards.
Having said all this, I should say that the killing of the Romanov children was pretty small potatoes when compared to other slaughters of innocent people commited by respectable European leaders in the 20th Century. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2005 1:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
The Romanov children would have been exiled to that court, where they would have become real symbols of the injustice and also the vulnerability of the Bolshevik regime.
|
Didn't I hear somewhere that the Romanovs did ask for exile in Britain, but were turned down, due to being rather unpopular with the British public? This might have occured before the Bolsheviks took over. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2005 1:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| OTOH wrote: |
| But pargmatiic and ethical aren't neccesarily the same thing, unless we're working on a strictly utilitarian calculus. |
I don't think you'll get arguments from anyone here that killing the Romanovs could not be deontologically justifiable. The issue here is if it could be justified for purely consequentialist reasons. Namely, were the Romanovs killed for no reason, or was there a reason why killing them might be advantageous or why sparing them might be disadvantageous? I think the Bolsheviks may have possibly suffered from letting the Romanovs live. The new government had many enemies and even if the British wouldn't take them in other governments might have. Especially considering that the little Romanovs were innocent, i.e. they had not ordered firing on civilians in 1905 nor could they be held culpable for the policies that led to so much suffering for the Russian people.
Edited for grammar |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2005 2:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Washington routinely smoked marijuana to alleviate the pain from his ailing teeth. Washington's own diary recounts, on several occasions, his efforts to better cultivate and enhance his crops of marijuana, which he used both for hemp (fiber) production and for medicine: May 12–13, 1765: "Sowed Hemp at Muddy hole by Swamp." August 7, 1765: ". . . began to seperate (sic) the Male from the Female Hemp at Do—rather too late."
My guess is Lenin didn't inhale. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Washington ( as a few of the posters here will know ) was in his time the 2nd highest ranking freemason in AmeriKa. Any guesses who was the first ?
A depiction of the "Most Worshipful Master"
Now was Lenin a freemason ? Probably. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| igotthisguitar wrote: |
| ...in AmeriKa. |
What exactly are you saying or implying when you spell "America" this way? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
