High schoolers’ assignment: Present argument in favor of the Holocaust

Well clearly he's trying to ascertain if the students are capable of comprehending how a monstrous event like the holocaust can be twisted into a justifiable act, which of course it has been by the nazis. What argument can you possibly use to justify such an event and imo the requirement is to dehumanise and demonise. Not sure if an assignment was really required and personally find it in bad taste but there it is.

 

Walking a mile in another man's shoes is never a bad idea.

 

The holocaust was horrible, but what commies did was even worse.

I'd like to see what lefties would say from the perspective of the ethnic, national, clergy, and economic groups casually shot in the face by marxists.

Today I drove past the site of the San Bernardino terrorist attack. The site of the attack is still closed. There is a "shrine", and a man who is still praying there.

 

What about in Nazi Germany where being a Jew was illegal and an executable offense?

Were those executions murder?

 

And the communists have nothing on what European imperialists did to Africa and Asia.

 

Interesting. Try this. It starts with progressivism. Cloud it with some functional equality issue, and then create the scapegoat that keeps that equality from being. Look at simply every progressive narrative, and you see the foundational work being addressed in this way.

Yes, many think that these types of horrors are indefensible. But, look at something like climate change as an example. The draconian population and economic controls being advocated as "necessary" to ensure our survivability. Put anything in that context, and you're likely to find folks moving rapidly towards the indefensible.

 

They're in training to become Democrats.

 

Where exactly has anyone seriously been advocating "draconian population and economic controls" regarding climate change?

 

Well, let's peruse the liberal media shall we? NPR discussion: "
ABSTRACT: Contrary to political and philosophical consensus, we argue that the threats posed by climate change justify population engineering, the intentional manipulation of the size and structure of human populations. Specifically, we defend three types of policies aimed at reducing fertility rates: (1) choice enhancement, (2) preference adjustment, and (3) incentivization. While few object to the first type of policy, the latter two are generally rejected because of their potential for coercion or morally objectionable manipulation. We argue that forms of each policy type are pragmatically and morally justified (perhaps even required) tools for preventing the harms of global climate change. "
http://www.npr.org/documents/2016/jun/population_engineering.pdf

The Atlantic...
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/...hange-solution-no-one-will-talk-about/382197/

These conversations range from optional to governmentally enforced and defined.

 

Yes it's a lesson on how to comprehend other perspectives regardless of your own. Not surprised to some its yet another dem plot.

 

Excuse me, but you do not seem appreciate the difference between using specific historical events and people where that history and those events are not in question, and a contemporary issue of massive political concern.

I am amazed the you could compare the motivations and morality of the holocaust to climate change and efforts to mitigate our contribution to it.

But hey, why not since logical fallacies seem to be the stock and trade of some.

 

You don't unless you compromise your own morals and no student should be required to do so even if pretending. The better lesson is why the Holocaust is indefensible. I would have submitted a paper with one line. The Holocaust is not defendable. Then challenge the teacher to prove it wrong.

 

What justification for the Holocaust is defensible to a rational mind?

 

I agree there are all kinds of topics that would create real political firestorms. OTOH, I did make the distinction between examining history and contemporary issues.

 

Its a method to teach critical thinking.

 

The Jews are something less than real humans, like babies.

You can get some people to believe anything.

 

I understand that and agree with the method but as much as I hate this term the subject matter needs to be age appropriate.

 

These students are in HS.

 

yes, understood. The method is fine but the subject matter is in my opinion not appropriate for high school level.

 

What in the hell are you prattling about?

 

so you would object to the object of the lesson in the first place?

At a college level, if a student HASN'T figured out that the holocaust is morally repulsive and wholly indefensible, then they ain't much of a human being much less a student.

 

Are just taking survey or was there anything in any of my post that could possibly lead you to think that they are not? Did I not say that genocide is mass murder? Does not your scenario fit genocide ? So you can answer your own question.

 

So all those that participated in manifesting the holocaust were irrational? Seems to me a helluva a lot of them were pretty damn rational in the way they went about it.

 

It certainly was appropriate in the HS I attended.

 

Yep, and you just proved it.