[me_me_me]

Well I don't think you are being honest. You didn't address the other extreme which is the whole sourcing of chocolate by Nestle.

The point i am trying to flesh out is how much one can be blamed for a big picture. One cannot change the world only affect it in a tiniest way. But when a majority of a group/class are pushing same way they can affect history.

[watwut]

I am not being honest because I stopped at addressing nazi guards (which I know a lot about) and did not addressed Nestle (which I dont know much about and would have to do research)?

That is not honest argument, that is absurd accusation.

> The point i am trying to flesh out is how much one can be blamed for a big picture. One cannot change the world only affect it in a tiniest way. But when a majority of a group/class are pushing same way they can affect history.

That was not apparent from your comment. But also, I think that you are using straw idea of aristocracy rather then real societal system as it existed in various periods. The whole thread started with my look at real world historical aristocracy. You used made up nazi guard that was "just doing job" to tilt big picture, but it was not fair comparison.

All this is under article about Marie Antionette who specifically I don't really think was evil.

[me_me_me]

I am illustrating the fact that you can be in position of power, and through your unwillingness to give up the privileges of your position or sheer ignorance of others fate, you are still responsible (to lesser or grater degree) for the acts committed by the group/social class you belong to (unless you are actually acting against that).

Direct historical example is the aristocracy of Hungary and Poland. Both undermined and exploited their rulers to extracted privileges and wealth of their respective nations. Resulting in weak states that fall pray to their neighbors.

> All this is under article about Marie Antionette who specifically I don't really think was evil.

I am not arguing she was evil, but that she was guilty of the situation and shouldn't be judged based on how nice she was to people and how great her writing skills were.

[watwut]

> I am not arguing she was evil, but that she was guilty of the situation and shouldn't be judged based on how nice she was to people and how great her writing skills were

I do not believe in guilt based on your birth circumstances. I also think that you are building flippant strawman in "shouldn't be judged based on how nice she was to people and how great her writing skills were".

You dont want to judge people on their actions, you want to build enemies to make it easy to judge people. I am not interested in that. You dont care about what who believed, actually tried to push for and why the old system malfunctioned or was impossible to reform.

[me_me_me]

> I do not believe in guilt based on your birth circumstances

Nither do I.

Its not about birth but the action you take or not take.

> You dont want to judge people on their actions, you want to build enemies to make it easy to judge people. I am not interested in that. You dont care about what who believed, actually tried to push for and why the old system malfunctioned or was impossible to reform.

You completely mischarectarise what I say. You use formulations that put words into my mouth

> You dont care about

> You dont want to

This is the definition of building straw-man argument that YOU accuse me of. So maybe read what I write and critique what I wrote and not what you think that I think.

> I also think that you are building flippant strawman in "shouldn't be judged based on how nice she was to people and how great her writing skills were".

This is the definition of judging person by their actions. Just because she was polite and smiling and wrote a tearful letters, it does not make her a good person. I dont care if you believe in Jesus and go to church 3 time a week. If you stab someone to death on the street for giving you 'the look' you should rot in prison.