BanzaiZ Posted October 11, 2013 Share Posted October 11, 2013 Then what would you call the holocaust, and are you implying that we don't quantify evil and have different levels of it? The Holocaust is a mass scale atrocity, more narrowly defined as genocide. Genocide is an atrocity. Rape is a smaller scale atrocity, more narrowly defined as physical assault with denial of personhood and agency. Rape is an atrocity. These are both atrocities, because they fit the definition as an extremely wicked or cruel act. Are both atrocities able to be further examined and defined? Yes. But it doesn't take away from the fact that both are extremely wicked and cruel acts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
butterbumps! Posted October 11, 2013 Share Posted October 11, 2013 Then what would you call the holocaust, and are you implying that we don't quantify evil and have different levels of it? This isn't a zero sum game. It's not like the Holocaust has a monopoly on the term "atrocity." Good lord, is 9-11 not an atrocity because it involved thousands rather than millions? Both a rape and the Holocaust can be atrocious. I really think you should stop with this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dany Girl Posted October 11, 2013 Share Posted October 11, 2013 But said rape victim wouldn't tell a holocaust survivor that their rape is on the same level as what the survivor went throughdepending on the level of violence involved in the rape, they might. And no holocaust victim would try to diminish someone else's suffering. The Holocaust was a truly atrocious time period, but it's not the end all be all mark for what's atrocious or not. To say things can't be considered atrocities unless they're on par with the Holocaust is quite frankly ignorant IMO. Many people have suffered atrocities in their lives without concentration camps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BanzaiZ Posted October 11, 2013 Share Posted October 11, 2013 But said rape victim wouldn't tell a holocaust survivor that their rape is on the same level as what the survivor went through Again with your hypothetical scenarios that will most likely never happen! Again, you're trying to qualify other people's degrees of suffering. We're not saying that they're on the same "levels" like you're trying to set up. What happened to both of those people qualifies as an atrocity. IF you don't like that, take it up with Webster and lobby to have the definition of atrocity changed to what you think it should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pamparius Posted October 11, 2013 Share Posted October 11, 2013 To me none of these people are crazy more misguided and misinformed \\ Of course they wouldn't seem crazy, TO A FELLOW CRAZY PERSON! just kididng :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanTheBold Posted October 11, 2013 Author Share Posted October 11, 2013 Oh, God... Holocaust is not the only atrocity... I agree...My point is when you use a word like atrocity whether you like it or not there are heavy meanings to it and it shouldnt be just thrown around Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dany Girl Posted October 11, 2013 Share Posted October 11, 2013 Right because all you have to do is say that my opinion that makes you right? No you can be of the opinion that 2+2=6 your still factually wrong,and my statement that you can accept someone and still correct them was a factual one.Lastly said rape victim wouldn't tell a holocaust survivor that their rape is on the same level as what the survivor went throughIt's not a zero sum term! There are many levels of atrocities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Selig Posted October 11, 2013 Share Posted October 11, 2013 You know what - how about you use the words you want in the cases you deem appropriate, and let others do the same? Deal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dany Girl Posted October 11, 2013 Share Posted October 11, 2013 My point is when you use a word like atrocity whether you like it or not there are heavy meanings to it and it shouldnt be just thrown aroundand being brutally raped is an atrocity. I suggest you stop with this line of quantifying suffering that somehow rape isn't atrocious because it's not the same level as the Holocaust. Rape talk is forbidden on this board. This thread will be locked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mladen Posted October 11, 2013 Share Posted October 11, 2013 This isn't a zero sum game. It's not like the Holocaust has a monopoly on the term "atrocity." Good lord, is 9-11 not an atrocity because it involved thousands rather than millions? Both a rape and the Holocaust can be atrocious. I really think you should stop with this. Just look at war in Bosnia... Any rape is atrocious, but in Bosnia, we had mass rapes, how would OP define it? I agree, this isn't zero sum game, and to look at it, is to completely miss the point. Yes, some crimes are worse than others(stealing food isn't the same as murder), but what has been done in death camps and what rape victims survive is something that we can freely call atrocious. When someone attacks not just your body, but dignity and psyche, then that crime, IMO, is atrocious itself. My point is when you use a word like atrocity whether you like it or not there are heavy meanings to it and it shouldnt be just thrown around We are not using it whenever we want. We use it to describe certain crimes, not all of them... And btw, if you want to correct us, how about offering some suggestions, like bumps did it here? Explain us how would you assess certain crimes, and why we can't use the word atrocious in some cases... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pamparius Posted October 11, 2013 Share Posted October 11, 2013 depending on the level of violence involved in the rape, they might. And no holocaust victim would try to diminish someone else's suffering.The Holocaust was a truly atrocious time period, but it's not the end all be all mark for what's atrocious or not. To say things can't be considered atrocities unless they're on par with the Holocaust is quite frankly ignorant IMO. Many people have suffered atrocities in their lives without concentration camps. Have to agree with this, atrociousness doesn't depend on the severity of the act. That sounds more like confusing a catastrophe and a tragedy, which do have certain qualifiers. For instance, a rape is certainly a tragedy, but it's not a catastrophe. Although a tragic rape may have catastrophic effects on a person's life as a whole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanTheBold Posted October 11, 2013 Author Share Posted October 11, 2013 It's not a zero sum term! There are many levels of atrocities. And I would argue that there are many levels of evil and atrocities are one of them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanTheBold Posted October 11, 2013 Author Share Posted October 11, 2013 Just look at war in Bosnia... Any rape is atrocious, but in Bosnia, we had mass rapes, how would OP define it? I agree, this isn't zero sum game, and to look at it, is to completely miss the point. Yes, some crimes are worse than others(stealing food isn't the same as murder), but what has been done in death camps and what rape victims survive is something that we can freely call atrocious. When someone attacks not just your body, but dignity and psyche, then that crime, IMO, is atrocious itself. We are not using it whenever we want. We use it to describe certain crimes, not all of them... And btw, if you want to correct us, how about offering some suggestions, like bumps did it here? Explain us how would you assess certain crimes, and why we can't use the word atrocious in some cases...It's quite simple the level and scale of human suffering not only in the context of the current time and history as whole also the level of intent would factor in Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pamparius Posted October 11, 2013 Share Posted October 11, 2013 And I would argue that there are many levels of evil and atrocities are one of them Honestly man, you're better off leaving this subject alone. The moderators around here are generally pretty touchy but they are especially touchy on this subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanTheBold Posted October 11, 2013 Author Share Posted October 11, 2013 Honestly man, you're better off leaving this subject alone. The moderators around here are generally pretty touchy but they are especially touchy on this subject. I'm of the opinion people shouldn't be censored because what they say might be touchy to some Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dany Girl Posted October 11, 2013 Share Posted October 11, 2013 And I would argue that there are many levels of evil and atrocities are one of themagain, if you told a rape victim what happened to them wasn't an atrocity you better be ready to get knocked on your ass. Saying a rape is not an atrocious act is frankly disgusting and insulting to all victims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mladen Posted October 11, 2013 Share Posted October 11, 2013 It's quite simple the level and scale of human suffering not only in the context of the current time and history as whole also the level of intent would factor in I think you should do better job than that. I think you should start explaining exactly what you think and don't hide behind general statements and "zero sum game" posts... I am giving you chance to explain to us freely why some crimes can't be considered atrocious... Either you use it, or admit you are wrong... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pamparius Posted October 11, 2013 Share Posted October 11, 2013 I'm of the opinion people shouldn't be censored because what they say might be touchy to some Me too, unfortunately, the moderators are on the side of the ridiculously sensitive posters. Just the way it is, and it's not a battle worth fighting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BanzaiZ Posted October 11, 2013 Share Posted October 11, 2013 It's quite simple the level and scale of human suffering not only in the context of the current time and history as whole also the level of intent would factor in So basically you think the rest of us should conform to your own personal view of the word. That's all I'm getting from you anymore. Many of us have given you well-reasoned rebuttals, yet you continue to cling to your base argument, that people are using the word in a way you don't personally agree with. Tough cookies. I'm also joining the chorus on letting this drop. This thread is not much longer for staying open. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanTheBold Posted October 11, 2013 Author Share Posted October 11, 2013 again, if you told a rape victim what happened to them wasn't an atrocity you better be ready to get knocked on your ass. Saying a rape is not an atrocious act is frankly disgusting and insulting to all victims. No if I said there was nothing wrong with it it would be disgusting and deplorable but I didn't say that. I said that evil acts should be kept in perspective because honestly yes rap is a terrible thing but there are worse things still and in that perspective I wouldn't use the word atrocity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.