This was RAPE!

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Records say otherwise:



And here:



Many of the lower-level people tried in West Germany were given lighter sentences because the "following orders" defense was seen as mitigating circumstances, but it did not excuse their guilt for committing the crimes - they were still found guilty.

As an example, Auschwitz commandant Rudolf Hoess was sentenced to death. A camp commandant is only a few rungs above a regular camp guard, on the overall hierachy. Certainly he was simply "following orders". That didn't excuse him for being a cold-blooded genocidal murderer.

-Andrew

But apparently they were victims. Maybe they should have been sentenced to counselling?

 

[gumboot]

Are all the Vietnam Veterans complicit in the firebombing of innocent villages? I'd say no.

That's a pretty broad comparison.

Are you saying ALL Vietnam veterans took part, directly, in the firebombing of innocent villages? Because that's what you're claiming.

We're not talking about all German soldiers here - regular members of the Weirmacht who fought for the Nazis and enabled their conquest were not prosecuted for war crimes. It was the death camp guards who directly assisted in the slaughter of civilians that were prosecuted.

-Andrew

 

[gumboot]

So, customs agents will go searching through a person's luggage for blue light bulbs?

I think it'd be pretty obvious you had a police light bar with you... They're quite large. Not just a "blue light bulb".

I can't really imagine that there's nowhere you can get them. Surely there are electronics shops and theatrical supply companies on your island.

There are. But nowhere you can get anything that is the same as a police light. They're really very distinct.

Believe me, we have tried. I've been involved in several films that had to have police lights. We always ended up having to cheat it by having the lights off-camera so you just saw the blue and red flashes from a strobe.

Some film hire places have some old ones (and there are a few straight red ones hanging about) but they aren't really anything like the current ones in use.

I believe also there's a single company that had a collection of vehicles shipped in specifically for an American feature film - that included some police cruisers. But the light format is very different to New Zealand police cars, and obviously these single examples were very carefully looked after.

And don't forget there's also the police uniform, the flashing headlights, and the bullhorn to take into account.

-Andrew

 

[ImaginalDisc]

That's a pretty broad comparison.

Are you saying ALL Vietnam veterans took part, directly, in the firebombing of innocent villages? Because that's what you're claiming.

We're not talking about all German soldiers here - regular members of the Weirmacht who fought for the Nazis and enabled their conquest were not prosecuted for war crimes. It was the death camp guards who directly assisted in the slaughter of civilians that were prosecuted.

-Andrew

Wait a second. How can you object to my comparing Vietnam Veterans, who, for the record, I do not hold are all responsible for the attrocities commited by some, to Nazis when you are willing to compare Mcdonald's employees to Nazis? Stop being hyproctical.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Wait a second. How can you object to my comparing Vietnam Veterans, who, for the record, I do not hold are all responsible for the attrocities commited by some, to Nazis when you are willing to compare Mcdonald's employees to Nazis? Stop being hyproctical.

And I do not think that all Germans alive during the war are responsible for the actions of death camp guards. However where we appear to differ is that I think that death camp guards ARE responsible for their own actions, whereas you seem to believe they are victims of somebody else's actions.

It is not a case of comparing Mcdonald's employees as a group to Nazi's, it as a case of comparing your excusing of one specific Mcdonald's employee's actions because she was ordered to carry them out to the excuse used by certain death camp guards to excuse their actions.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

And I do not think that all Germans alive during the war are responsible for the actions of death camp guards. However where we appear to differ is that I think that death camp guards ARE responsible for their own actions, whereas you seem to believe they are victims of somebody else's actions.

If you read my post more carefully, you would have read that I said that some clearly were victimizers, and some were oth victims and victimizers, that the situation isn't quite black and white.

It is not a case of comparing Mcdonald's employees as a group to Nazi's, it as a case of comparing your excusing of one specific Mcdonald's employee's actions because she was ordered to carry them out to the excuse used by certain death camp guards to excuse their actions.

I did not say it excuses the actions, I thank you not to put words in my mouth, I said it explains them. People are wired to obey.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I guess things are different here...

Here blue = police and red = emergency services (police, fire, ambulance - our police have red and blue).

It is 100% illegal for anyone else to use any of these, and there's nowhere you can get them.

I guess that's the advantage though of being a single state with only 4 million people, on an island.

-Andrew

Do you have any volentier ambulance and fire? Do they let them put lights on their personal vehicals?

First thing anyone can put an amber light on their vehical, it has no legal meaning. Grill lights, making the headlights flash, lights in the back are also largely unregulated.

Hell I know people who have purchased sirens for their personal vehicals(it would be illegal to use one with out certain kinds of clearance)

YOu want to see what you can buy in the US

http://www.galls.com/category2.html?assort=general_catalog&cat=2699

 

[gumboot]

Wait a second. How can you object to my comparing Vietnam Veterans, who, for the record, I do not hold are all responsible for the attrocities commited by some, to Nazis when you are willing to compare Mcdonald's employees to Nazis? Stop being hyproctical.

I object to the comparison because you compared ALL Vietnam Veterans to Nazi death camp guards. Not ALL Vietnam Veterans committed atrocities. I would pretty confidentally claim a very small minority did.

However ALL Nazi death camp guards are actively partaking in atrocity.

THAT is why I object to your comparison - because it is a FALSE comparison.

I am perfectly happy, for example, to compare the soldiers at My Lai to Nazi Death Camp Guards.

-Andrew

 

[gumboot]

I did not say it excuses the actions, I thank you not to put words in my mouth, I said it explains them. People are wired to obey.

Um...

Do you think these victims, and how dare anyone blame them, did try to reason their way out of these situations, but the con man was very good.

Remember that?

If you don't mean by this that we should excuse their actions, what DO you mean? Serial killers can be explained. Hell, HITLER can be explained. Does that mean "how dare anyone blame them"?

-Andrew

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

If you read my post more carefully, you would have read that I said that some clearly were victimizers, and some were oth victims and victimizers, that the situation isn't quite black and white.

Perhaps we should invite the survivors or relatives of the deceased to ceremonies to commemorate the victims. After all they are victims?

I did not say it excuses the actions, I thank you not to put words in my mouth, I said it explains them. People are wired to obey.

You describe someone as a victim, ask how anyone dare blame them, but say that you are not excusing their actions? OK. Maybe we have a different definition of "excuse".

 

[gumboot]

Do you have any volentier ambulance and fire? Do they let them put lights on their personal vehicals?

No volunteer ambulances. Doctors and other medical personnel (midwives, etc.) have their own light they can use for emergencies (off the top of my head I think it's green) but you're not legally required to get out of their way.

We have volunteer fire departments but they are all equipped with fire engines.

First thing anyone can put an amber light on their vehical, it has no legal meaning. Grill lights, making the headlights flash, lights in the back are also largely unregulated.

The amber light thing is the same here (in fact any vehicle entering the work area of Ports of Auckland is REQUIRED to have an amber light on it).

New Zealand seems to be much more heavily regulated than the US.

YOu want to see what you can buy in the US

Yikes! Yes I can see how that would be a problem in the US.

-Andrew

 

[ponderingturtle]

No volunteer ambulances. Doctors and other medical personnel (midwives, etc.) have their own light they can use for emergencies (off the top of my head I think it's green) but you're not legally required to get out of their way.

We have volunteer fire departments but they are all equipped with fire engines.

YOu seem to be missunderstanding that volunteers lights on personal vehicals mean. They are for when you are responding to the fire departement or ambulance corps to get the emergency vehical. In NY they are curtosy lights, meaning that they have no effect on what you are allowed or required to do on the road. Each state has different laws regarding the exact status of each kind of light

Yikes! Yes I can see how that would be a problem in the US.

-Andrew

Even more comfusing is that it is the kind of place many offical organizations get their lights from. So you can get the same lightbar as the police have sent to your home. Not similar the same brand.

Now in new zeland they might have special ones made just for them but in the US they don't.

So just because there are lights or the headlights flash, all that means is that someone spent the money on these things from catalogs and put them in the car. So marked cars are important is it is hard to just change the paint job that quickly compared to taking off a light bar.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Um...



Remember that?

If you don't mean by this that we should excuse their actions, what DO you mean? Serial killers can be explained. Hell, HITLER can be explained. Does that mean "how dare anyone blame them"?

-Andrew

Did you read the article? They felt compelled by an authority they thought could punish them. Are you comparing them to Hitler and Serial killers now? When will the Godwining of this subject stop?

 

[Piscivore]

As far as police lights go (and this is totally anecdotal) I seem to recall a case where the ersatz officer used a simple red-lensed flashlight to pull over his victims.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Did you read the article? They felt compelled by an authority they thought could punish them. Are you comparing them to Hitler and Serial killers now? When will the Godwining of this subject stop?

Where in the article does it say that either Summers or Nix thought they could be punished?

And do you consider it a reasonable defence to say "I had to threaten to hit a young naked woman and force her to give me a blowjob because a police officer told me to?"

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Where in the article does it say that either Summers or Nix thought they could be punished?

And do you consider it a reasonable defence to say "I had to threaten to hit a young naked woman and force her to give me a blowjob because a police officer told me to?"

It's certainly one that should be considered, rather than flatly dismissed.

 

[LostAngeles]

There's an interesting debate between Deepak Chopra and Michael Shermer in the current issue of Skeptic magazine, in which Chopra argues, among other things, that skepticism contributes nothing positive to humankind and consists only of naysaying the creative ideas of others. .

Because nothing good in the history of the world (civil rights) has ever come from questioning what you've been told, Mr. Chopra.

Carry on.

 

[Morrigan]

People are responsible for their own actions. Period. There is not excusing what they did to that poor girl. They must be accountable for what they chose to do.

Otherwise things like this will never cease.

Let me reitterate, because this is something people in modern society REALLY don't get.

You are responsible for your own actions.

Thank you.

I am appaled at some of the things which have been said in this thread. Why are so many of us so willing to condemn people for being obedient to a convincing authority? From the first day we enter school, we're conditioned to accept authority. This con man was very clever, very persistent, and exremely manipulative.

I am perfectly willing to condemn people for being irrationally obedient. It shows a complete lack of judgment, common sense, mental strength, critical thinking, and rationality, and I will happily denounce it. I have a bit of sympathy for the victim (because being weak and stupid does not mean she deserved the horrible abuse), but zero whatsoever for her managers and the men Summers involved.

They say the man was convincing... but I don't buy it one bit. If this man managed to convince them that slapping the girl's arse and making her perform sexual acts, I would say that these morons are far too easily convinced of anything. The evidence that the man wasn't all that convincing is that he failed in his "pranks" nine times out of ten or so.

If you've never found yourself doing bizzare things you'd never have done otherwise simply because you were told, you've never had to work for a living.

Please spare me your projecting. If I've ever done anything at work that I considered "bizarre", it was mostly because I thought it was a bad business or technological decision. It was certainly nothing that would have hurt anyone, and anyone who's not a complete retard should have known the line between "bizarre work-related order" and "strip, humiliate and violate other employee", because it's pretty damn thick.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I am perfectly willing to condemn people for being irrationally obedient. It shows a complete lack of judgment, common sense, mental strength, critical thinking, and rationality, and I will happily denounce it. I have a bit of sympathy for the victim (because being weak and stupid does not mean she deserved the horrible abuse), but zero whatsoever for her managers and the men Summers involved.

At what level of compliance with authority does it become a case where the individual was basicly doing what the majority of people would do, and if most people would do the sam should it be punished?

Is it fair to punish someone for doing something that say 95% of people if they where in his position would do?

A differnet experiment showed that if hearing someone that they knew no one else could hear have an epileptic fit, most people went for help, if there where others there and the others didn't go for help most people didn't. THis also applies when it was smoke comeing through a door, if others didn't react to it most people wouldn't react. With out a base line of others actions most people reacted to it.

 

[JamesDillon]

ImaginalDisc,

I think you're overstating your objection here, though some of the responses to you have been similarly overstated on the other side. As I said earlier in this thread, the deference to authority figures that most of us are conditioned with is, in general, a good thing. In order for cooperative society to function properly, it is in everyone's interest to set up a hierarchical structure in which people generally defer to those in positions of authority, rather than questioning every request or order they receive. Obviously much time would be wasted if the authorities had to justify every request they make of the public or of their subordinates, and I haven't seen anyone here arguing otherwise.

However, deference to authority only goes so far in justifying participation in an illegal action, and it is not an excuse to shut down one's own critical thinking faculties. It is simply not reasonable to believe that the anonymous person calling you on the phone, telling you to strip search a teenage waitress, is in fact a legal authority. It is flatly impossible to accept the premise that anyone could reasonably believe that a genuine police officer is instructing him or her to insert penetrate this girl or force her to perform oral sex. "I did it because the officer told me to" just isn't a valid defense in this case, especially if the "officer" is an anonymous voice on the telephone. Frankly, even if the manager did sincerely believe that the person on the phone was a police officer, a sincere belief that a cop is telling you to force this girl to perform oral sex is just too irrational to constitute a valid legal or moral defense.

I tend to think that people comply so readily in these situations because, deep down, many (all?) of us have a proclivity toward cruelty that is inhibited only by the restraining force of social mores. People are so willing to comply with directions from authority figures to inflict pain or humiliation because on some level, they want to do so. Bertrand Russell wrote (in one of his essays included in the volume Why I Am Not A Christian; I don't recall which one) that moral indignation is a socially-condoned outlet for sadism and cruelty, and I think he's probably right about that. Whether the managers in these situations sincerely believed that they were being instructed to act by an authority figure or not, their actions are nevertheless legally and morally inexcusable.