Quote from: jeff37923;815782shlominus may be right.....

Yeah, kind of weird I know but there we are.

It is funny though how your arguments , desperately throwing darts at increasingly disparate goalposts, now actually support what I said to begin with.

Besides the people who were obviously war criminals charged at Nuremberg, a number were charged based on  their complicitness in profiting off of these endeavours by utilizing the so-called "prisoners of war" in slave labour. ("enemies of peace", to quote the Nuremberg principles)

Just as the shareholders profiting off of a company that engages in immoral and/or criminal behaviours are guilty in complicitness. You want to call them war criminals for that? Fine. I retract any argument about that, because its meaningless pedanticism in regards to the context. (Noting, of course, that a number of the people listed were found "not guilty" of war crimes, despite the very wide net the Nuremberg principles throws at that definition). So let's use your logic then: everyone at Nuremberg is a war criminal, even if they did not directly commit any war crimes. Thus, any shareholder in a company that commits crimes is  criminal, due to their complictness in said crimes. I wasn't even taking it that far, suggesting only an ethical level of responsibility for where one spends their money. But you've brought it there, so I'm wondering if you can take that obvious statement and back track now to change your argument yet again? We're past the point of it even needing to be an analogy, this is just simply applying the same ethical standards to two situations.

Quote from: jeff37923;815782shlominus may be right.....

You really want to throw your dice into that pool?

Quote from: TristramEvans;815784We're past the point of it even needing to be an analogy, this is just simply applying the same ethical standards to two situations.

So are you admitting you were wrong about history or just desperately hoping no one cares about your lies?

Quote from: TristramEvans;815784It is funny though how your arguments , desperately throwing darts at increasingly disparate goalposts, now actually support what I said to begin with.

Besides the people who were obviously war criminals charged at Nuremberg, a number were charged based on  their complicitness in profiting off of these endeavours by utilizing the so-called "prisoners of war" in slave labour. ("enemies of peace", to quote the Nuremberg principles)

They weren't charged based on profit. They were convicted based on their culpability as important decision makers. 8 million Germans were members of the Nazi party in 1945. They were not brought to trial. Those fairly ordinary Germans are the people who are analogous to ordinary shareholders. Not the high level government and party officials you listed who were convicted of war crimes and crimes against humanity at Nurenberg. Which is why your Godwin Nurenberg analogy demonstrates the opposite of what you want it to show.

But I'd still like to know why despite the actual historical record you have twice said those convicted Nazi leaders aren't war criminals. What the fuck is up with you?

Quote from: Bren;815786So are you admitting you were wrong about history or just desperately hoping no one cares about your lies?

So you're admitting you were wrong about the analogy or just hoping everyone will be distracted by you calling me a nazi over a semantics argument that they hope they won't notice your lies?

No, I'm not wrong about history. I disagree with the definition of a "War criminal" to include people that don't commit actual war crimes, but I've already conceded that definition to you. So, having that concession, how do you stand on your argument that shareholders are criminals?

We've gone from Wizards of the Coast to the Nuremberg Trials in 29 pages.

I'm exhausted.

Quote from: Bren;815787They weren't charged based on profit. They were convicted based on their culpability as important decision makers. 8 million Germans were members of the Nazi party in 1945. They were not brought to trial. Those fairly ordinary Germans are the people who are analogous to ordinary shareholders. Not the high level government and party officials you listed who were convicted of war crimes and crimes against humanity at Nurenberg. Which is why your Godwin Nurenberg analogy demonstrates the opposite of what you want it to show.

But I'd still like to know why despite the actual historical record you have twice said those convicted Nazi leaders aren't war criminals. What the fuck is up with you?

I'm just going to repeat this, since you're ignoring it as its inconvenient and places responsibility on you to actually support the implications of your position:

It is funny though how your arguments , desperately throwing darts at increasingly disparate goalposts, now actually support what I said to begin with.

Besides the people who were obviously war criminals charged at Nuremberg, a number were charged based on their complicitness in profiting off of these endeavours by utilizing the so-called "prisoners of war" in slave labour. ("enemies of peace", to quote the Nuremberg principles)

Just as the shareholders profiting off of a company that engages in immoral and/or criminal behaviours are guilty in complicitness. You want to call them war criminals for that? Fine. I retract any argument about that, because its meaningless pedanticism in regards to the context. (Noting, of course, that a number of the people listed were found "not guilty" of war crimes, despite the very wide net the Nuremberg principles throws at that definition). So let's use your logic then: everyone at Nuremberg is a war criminal, even if they did not directly commit any war crimes. Thus, any shareholder in a company that commits crimes is criminal, due to their complictness in said crimes. I wasn't even taking it that far, suggesting only an ethical level of responsibility for where one spends or acquires their money. But you've brought it there, so I'm wondering if you can take that obvious statement and back track now to change your argument yet again? We're past the point of it even needing to be an analogy, this is just simply applying the same ethical standards to two situations.

Quote from: Endless Flight;815789We've gone from Wizards of the Coast to the Nuremberg Trials in 29 pages.

I'm exhausted.

Well, I'm just killing time until I leave for a weekend of debauchery in honour of St. Valentine, this will be over pretty soon, even assuming a mod doesnt close this thread in the next little while.


If anyone has anything to discuss about copyrights and WoTC however, I'd much rather be talking about that than feeding the troll

Quote from: TristramEvans;815791Well, I'm just killing time until I leave for a weekend of debauchery in honour of St. Valentine, this will be over pretty soon, even assuming a mod doesnt close this thread in the next little while.


If anyone has anything to discuss about copyrights and WoTC however, I'd much rather be talking about that than feeding the troll

So, shlominus was right. :banghead:

Quote from: TristramEvans;815790Besides the people who were obviously war criminals charged at Nuremberg, a number were charged based on their complicitness in profiting off of these endeavours by utilizing the so-called "prisoners of war" in slave labour. ("enemies of peace", to quote the Nuremberg principles)

tristam, you have no idea what you are talking about. your analogy is a joke and you talk shit about topics you evidently know nothing about. just shut up, hide under a rock for some time and try to save what little dignity you have left.

in your "analogy" the men charged at nuremberg would be top level-managment, not shareholders. because you are unable to read the links provided for your education, i will once again quote the relevant bits. here's what the men convicted at nuremberg were guilty of:


    Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of a crime against peace
    Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace
    War crimes
    Crimes against humanity

where in that list is the point "profiting from the war"?

Quote from: jeff37923;815793So, shlominus was right. :banghead:

No, the difference is my arguments are genuine. I'll engage in debate for fun, but I won't lie or go to the disingenuous lengths of someone like Bren to "win".

Quote from: shlominus;815794tristam, you have no idea what you are talking about. your analogy is a joke and you talk shit about topics you evidently know nothing about. just shut up, hide under a rock for some time and try to save what little dignity you have left.

Ah, we've reached the point in the thread where you don't have anything worth saying or any reasoned argument to make so you resort to "shut up" as a response. Duly noted.

As if my dignity was on the line. lol. I'm feeling just fine, thanks.

I notice that even in conceding whatever semantic argument over "war criminal" you and/or Bren want to use, that there is only silence in that regard. You've "won" in regards to your definition, but the reason you or Bren can't continue the argument past that is that it was never really anything other than a distraction to jump on because you know that you have no argument for the point I was ultimately making.

Hence "shut up" as your last ditch response.

Pathetic.

Quote from: TristramEvans;815796No, the difference is my arguments are genuine. I'll engage in debate for fun, but I won't lie or go to the disingenuous lengths of someone like Bren to "win".

You are repeatedly lying about Nazi history. It doesn't get much more trollish that that.

Quote from: TristramEvans;815788So you're admitting you were wrong about the analogy or just hoping everyone will be distracted by you calling me a nazi over a semantics argument that they hope they won't notice your lies?

No, I'm not wrong about history. I disagree with the definition of a "War criminal" to include people that don't commit actual war crimes, but I've already conceded that definition to you. So, having that concession, how do you stand on your argument that shareholders are criminals?

I don't know why you are now acting as an apologist for Nazi war criminals. That is unexpected and weird. Nor have you provided any explanation other than some odd pedantry about your dislike of definitions.

But you are obviously wrong about Nuremberg history. The fact that you don't like the definitions that come from the Nuremberg example you picked is irrelevant to the clear and actual facts regarding the convictions of multiple Nazi leaders for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

And no I don't agree that your analogy shows what you think it shows. One reason your analogy was stupid (aside from the egregious Godwin) was because it relies on your idiosyncratic definitions rather than the ones used at Nuremberg or by society at large. Your analogy actually demonstrates the opposite of what you claimed. Nuremberg demonstrated that the ordinary, person who doesn't make decisions and doesn't make or carry out policy is not a criminal. The leaders at Nuremberg were found guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity because they did make policy that resulted in genocide and mass murder not simply because they unknowingly benefitted financially from Nazi war crimes.

And no I don't agree with you that Nazi leaders were not war criminals just because you have some pedantic bee up your ass about the Nuremberg definition of war crimes. They were war criminals. They deserved the punishments they received. I hope you aren't seriously arguing otherwise.

And no I don't agree that ordinary shareholders are criminals without them having actual knowledge or responsibility for actions or policy. What we saw at Nuremberg was that knowledge and responsibility for policy that caused illegal actions resulted in conviction. Lack of knowledge and lack of responsibility for policy or carrying out illegal actions resulted in the very few acquittals at Nuremberg.

Quote from: shlominus;815794tristam, you have no idea what you are talking about. your analogy is a joke and you talk shit about topics you evidently know nothing about. just shut up, hide under a rock for some time and try to save what little dignity you have left.

in your "analogy" the men charged at nuremberg would be top level-managment, not shareholders. because you are unable to read the links provided for your education, i will once again quote the relevant bits. here's what the men convicted at nuremberg were guilty of:


    Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of a crime against peace
    Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace
    War crimes
    Crimes against humanity

where in that list is the point "profiting from the war"?

:eek: shlominus is right again.

Quote from: Bren;815800Y
 I don’t know why you are now acting as an apologist for Nazi war criminals.

Now, there's a blatant lie.

Desperately pathetic.

And with that, I'm out. Bren and Schlo can feel free to continue to do anything they can to avoid actually rebutting the point I made, or make up some more lies about me as they see fit. I'll be having lotsa sex with my GF...