Hacker News Reader

Comment by meric | Hacker News Reader

> It seems to me that such a business owner would seem in hindsight to have been acting virtuously,

No it wouldn't - There is a large percentage of population joining Nazi parties for convenience, for their career or even out of fear. Are you going to deny them the food you sell from your shop? If they are Nazi's, are they still not human beings deserving to access food in the market?

Does someone being a member of the Nazi party mean we can let them starve to death? Shoot them and push them into a trench even?

The moment you dehumanise vast swathes of the population, you've already lost and dropped to the level of "Nazi's". It's not wise to let your enemies turn you into them.

View on HN

> If they are Nazi's, are they still not human beings deserving to access food in the market?

No, they can stop being nazi's at any point. Literally in less than a second.

Blacks, jews, gays, disabled people can't.

Stop trying to equate the two.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

People can abandon their religion at any time, but we still protect peoples' religious rights, no matter how odious their beliefs.

No we don't, not when the religion (badly interpreted) promotes murder, ie radical islam.

Are you pretending that nazism can be interpreted charitably?

I can kill someone and claim it's for buddhism or my local sports team, but there is no basis for either of those promoting murder.

Nazism not so.

The penalty for leaving Islam (apostasy) is death. Many muslims believe it (like, the majority of the populations of places like Pakistan and Egypt). I guarantee you that you could not, consistent with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, deny service to Muslims merely for expressing the belief that apostates should be put to death.

I actually agree with you, and Christianity has the same problem in writing.

But the difference (or similarity?) is that only a diminishingly tiny fraction of practitioners for either religion believes in stoning.

If I asked you to give me a few key points of the tenets of Islam and Christianity, would any be about killing, eradicating, or persecution of people?

If I asked you to do the same for Nazism? Are you going to pretend it's comparable?

First, that's not true: http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religi.... In Bangladesh, where my family is from, 82% of Muslims favor making Sharia the law of the land. Of those, 55% (over 40% of the population) believe in stoning as a punishment for adultery. 44% (over 30% of the population) believe that apostates should be executed.

Second, it's irrelevant. In my hypothetical, I'm talking about specific individuals who have conceded to believing that apostates should be executed. If they invoke their religion as a shield for having that view, and have done nothing otherwise illegal, you can't refuse to serve them under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Alright, I'll gladly concede that I did not know that, but I strongly disagree that my comparisons you neglected are "irrelevant". I think that's the key discriminator.

The view on stoning in Bangladesh could be religious, but it could also be cultural, as it's not equal elsewhere where practicing muslims reside.

And if it, as I posit, isn't a core tenet of the religion, and if it is, as I posit, one in nazism, it can't be solved through cultural tolerance.

An atmosphere of free speech that allows for satire and conversation are the best weapons against extremist ideology.

I agree. I'm glad that's not challenged here.

I dispute your point - not everyone could have chosen to stop being nazis and live.

"Approximately 77,000 German citizens were killed for one or another form of resistance by Special Courts, courts-martial, People's Court and the civil justice system. "

"Almost every community in Germany had members taken away to concentration camps. As early as 1935 there were jingles warning: "Dear Lord God, keep me quiet, so that I don't end up in Dachau." (It almost rhymes in German: Lieber Herr Gott mach mich stumm / Daß ich nicht nach Dachau komm.)[17] "Dachau" refers to the Dachau concentration camp"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_resistance_to_Nazism

Which would still be a technicality because it's a specific edge case to the rule

- Given EXTENUATING circumstances, the choice may be difficult to exercise.

And even then - many people exercised that right, even knowing the risks - because it was just the right thing to do, and being a nazi wasn't.

I think the time to address the "staving Nazi" problem is when there are staving Nazis. Until then, keeping them out seems fine.

I'd note that I'm pretty sure by the time Nazi's owned the government in Germany it was too late.

I thought this was about the present.

The comment I replied to mentioned: "let's say a German business owner in the 1930s".

And how do you know they are not nazis anymore?

They may stop looking and acting like nazis, but still believe the same ideas.

What do you really oppose? Nazis? People who look and talk like Nazis? People who perform horrible actions like the horrible actions the Nazis did?

Well, I might ask whether you think there is a difference between selling food to an individual who happens to be a member of the Nazi party, and catering for a Nazi party event?

The bottom line is: Am I going to let a man starve himself to death while I have a shop full of food? No.

What if that man is, for example, threatening your family or friends?

In 2017 we have prisons and we don't starve anyone in there.

Well, actually...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/spoonuniversity.com/news/the-di...

If letting this man starve himself to death could save hundred of others I wouldn't hesitate.

Let me ask you this then. If a homeless Nazi begged me for a dollar to get a McMuffin (not sure if those are on the dollar menu but take it as part of the hypothetical here) so they won't starve that day and I refuse to give them a dollar because they are an unrepentant Nazi, am I a bad person?

At what point do I as an individual have the right to not associate with a group or ideology that's seeks my destruction? Because that's really what's at the heart of the matter whether we're talking about Cloudflare or just me because I'm sure that Cloudflare has Jews, racial minorities, and LGBT folks on their staff. And I'm sure even some of those folks are even investors. So why should the investors and employees of Cloudflare protect Nazis who seek their destruction? For money? I can accept that it's a matter of profit, but if you're asking for a moral basis to aid those that want to kill you I can't see there being any argument in favor of protecting or aiding them.

>Does someone being a member of the Nazi party mean we can let them starve to death? Shoot them and push them into a trench even?

Historically, yes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com